Four Adierian Metaphors Applied to

Couples Counseling

Daniel Eckstein and David Sarnoff

Abstract
The authors review Individual Psychology and couples counseling. They discuss
the use of metaphors as a practical way for couples and counselors to understand
each other better. Four specific metaphors are described; (a) the As and Hs of Re-
lationships, (b) Relationship as a Three-legged Sack Race, (c) Walls and Windows,
and (d) Cracking the Shell. A case study demonstrating use of these metaphors is
presented.

Metaphors are an excellent way of describing couples character-

istic styles. In this article, we begin with an overview of Adierian theory
specifically applied to working with couples. We then identify four Adierian
^ metaphors that can be used in working with couples and present a couple's
case study to show how the four metaphors can be used to describe chal-
lenges in the couple's relationship.

Metaphor Defined

Aristotle defined a metaphor as "a series of words in which a compari-

son is being made between two or more entities that are literally dissimilar"
(Angus & Rennis, 1988, p. 552). Metaphor, from the Greek meaphera,
which means to transfer or carry across, allows the user to transfer meaning
from one domain to another by "giving to one thing a name or description
that belongs . . . to something else, on the groups of similarity between the
two" (Leary, 1990, p. 4) According to Kopp (1971), "a metaphor is a way
of speaking in which one thing is expressed in terms of another, whereby
this bringing together throws new light on the character of what is being
described" (p. 17). For example, one partner may describe marriage as a
journey whereas another may describe marriage in terms of a competitive
game or even a battle (Lyddon, Clay, & Sparks, 2001).
The Journal of Individual Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 3, Fall 2007
O2007 by the University of Texas Press, RO. Box 7819, Austin, TX 78713-7819

Editorial office located in the College of Education at Georgia State University.

 Counseling Metaphors 323

Components of a Healthy Couple Relationship

Carlson and Dinkmeyer (2003) highlighted ten components that are pres-
ent in couples who have satisfying relationships. Members of such couples
• individually accept responsibility and develop self-esteem
• encourage each other
• identify and align their relationship goals
• communicate their feelings with honesty and openness
• listen empathically when feelings are being expressed
• seek to understand the factors that influence their relationship
• demonstrate that they accept and value each other
• choose thoughts, words, and actions that support the positive goals of the
relationship
• solve relational conflicts
• commit themselves to the ongoing process of maintaining an equal
relationship

Healthy individuals are usually attracted to other optimally functioning

people in their interpersonal transactions. Using the concept of Abraham
Maslovi/'s (1968) hierarchy of needs, they are seeking to fulfill Being (B)
needs, not Deficiency (D) needs, for sharing and for enriching their lives in
an intimate relationship (B needs). They are not clinging in a desperate way
because they are empty and fear they will be unable to survive aJone. Rollo
May (1995) richly contrasted the difference as being "I need you because I
love you" with the idea "I love you because I need you" (p. 55).
Eight dimensions of a healthy couple appear to comprise a multi-
dimensional, complex, non-summative unit. The eight dimensions that Bowers,
SteidI, Robnovitch, Brenner, and Nelson (1980) concretely delineated are:
1. What is the systems orientation with respect to the external world? Healthy
couples perceive themselves as a unit in which their relationship to each
other is special and precious.
2. What are the boundaries between individuals and between generations?
Boundary issues also involve the recognition that Individuals require pri-
vacy and that from such quiet inner "alone" time couples can chart new
directions.
3. What kind of communication occurs? Between the healthy couple there are
few double-bind communications. Wishes and expectations are most often
clearly conveyed.
4. What is the distribution of powers Who assumes leadership and control?
The relationship is likely to be equalitarian and mutually supportive.
5. What is the permissible and expressed affective range, and to what is this
conducive in terms of intimacy and closeness? The healthy couple is in
touch with and expresses a wide range of emotions.
324 Daniel Eckstein and David Sarnoff

6. Are autonomy and individuaiity encouraged or discouraged? Through their

own more self-sufficient and self-determining niche in the family and in the
larger world, healthy parents encourage their children to pursue their own
choices by both guiding and concurrently setting them free ("roots" and
"wings").
7. Is there a probiem-soiving and negotiation approach to handling disagree-
ments and decision making? Negotiation is hearing the other's input and
trying to resolve stalemates at the highest level by drawing upon every-
body's suggestions.
8. Does the couple have a sense of purpose and meaning in life and a transcen-
dentai value system, or does it feel alienated and adrift in the world? Healthy
couples exhibit a clear and shared belief system.

In a chapter on brief couples therapy, Carlson, Watts, and Maniacci

(2006) confronted the fallacy of divorce as a solution to couples' challenges.
They cited a study by Waite et al. (2002) in which it was found that unhap-
pily married adults who divorced or separated were no happier, on average,
than unhappily married adults who stayed together. Divorce did not reduce
symptoms of depression for unhappily married adults or raise their self-es-
teem or increase their sense of mastery, as compared to unhappy spouses
who stayed married.
One of the greatest financial challenges confronting couples involves
the issue of the wife-mother working outside the home. This is increasingly
necessary for many couples with or without children. This issue is one of
the stressors in Steiner's (2006) case study. Mommy Wars, which consists of
27 female authors and journalists describing the conflicting emotions about
their choices to either stay at home or not. Whatever the choice, it was a
"defining moment" in the lives ofthe 27 writers (Coontz, 2006).
Tyre (2006) noted that economists and sociologists who study women in
the workforce have found that most women with children work outside the
home. She also observed that
women who are most likely to stay at home with their children are younger
than 24 and have obtained high-school diplomas . . . Older, more educated
moms are more likely to keep working. When women quit to raise kids they
rarely retire for good. According to a report issued in December by the Cen-
sus, 75 percent of women with school age children are employed or looking
for work. By the time their children are 12 or older, that number rises to 80
percent, (p. 55)

Other statistics suggest that while the number of working mothers rose dra-
matically in the 1970s and 1980s, those numbers peaked at 73% in 2000,
subsequently declining by 1.6% (Coontz, 2006).
Opdyke (2006) wrote the following seven questions partners should ask
each other before getting married:
 Counseling Metaphors 325

1. What are your financial assets and liabilities? Although this is the most basic
question, it is often the most difficult to discuss. Knowing the assets and
liabilities each person brings into the relationship is the starting point for
money discussions.
2. How do you use debt? Couples should ask each other, "Do you assess debt
in the present, figuring you'll earn more money later in life and can pay it off
then? Do you abhor debt and refuse to own a credit card?" Either approach
could cause marital strife if one's partner is not aligned.
3. What is your money history? Get a credit report on each other. How each
couple was raised and the money memories each has shape how one deals
with finances in a relationship. Ask, "What does money represent to you?
Does it represent choices? Security? Time together on family vacations?
How will money be used to fulfill those values?"
4. Do we need a prenup? If one cannot bring up the topic, consider asking a
financial planner, counselor, or trusted spiritual guide to do it.
5. What are each of our financial aspirations? This conversation helps couples
articulate priorities and how to fund them together.
6. What are your career expectations? Both partners need to know what the
other expects of each other. Adierians call this "goal alignment."
7. How do you propose we divide financial duties? In many marriages, one
partner often takes the primary responsibility for the family's finances. How-
ever, the spouse in charge of those duties should keep the other partner
up-to-date, so that unspoken concerns don't grow into resentments. Family
finances work best when both partners know what is going on with the
money; otherwise, pressure can build over time.

Adierian Perspectives in the Context of Contemporary Marriages

Carlson et al. (2006) suggested the following four-step process of Adie-

rian Brief Couples Therapy.

Step 1: Relationship. Establish an empathic relationship in which the cou-

ple feels understood and accepted. Help each client to connect to his or her
internal and external resources. This facilitates the couple to be optimistic
about the possibility of a more satisfying life together.
Step 2: Assessment. Help couples understand their beliefs, feelings, mo-
tives, and goals that determine their life styles. Couples can fill out inventories
prior to therapy that can provide such information as what his or her percep-
tion ofthe problem is; when it started; precipitating events; a medical history,
a social history; and why they are seeking counseling.
Step 3: Insight. Facilitate insight into mistaken goals and self-defeating be-
haviors and to find meaning.
Step 4: Reorientation. Explore alternatives to the problem, behaviors, or
situation; obtain a commitment to change, (pp. 181-182)
326 Daniel Eckstein and David Sarnoff

While Adier's beliefs on parent-child relationships have received a great

deal of attention, Blanton (2000) asserted that "his perspective on issues of
gender, equality, and cooperation remain extremely salient to an under-
standing of contemporary marriages" (p. 211). Adler (as cited in Ansbacher
& Ansbacher, 1978) defined love and marriage as follows:
Love, with its fulfillment, marriage, is the most intimate devotion toward a
partner of the other sex, expressed in physical attraction, in comradeship, and
in the decision to have children. It can easily be shown that love and marriage
are one side of co-operation—not a co-operation for the welfare of two persons
only, but a co-operation also for the welfare of humanity, (p. 122)

Adler (as cited in Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1956) identified the following
three qualities that should be taken into consideration when a person is
evaluating a potential marital partner: the capacity for retaining friendship,
the ability to be interested in his or her work, and more interest in the part-
ner than in self. Blanton wrote that "characteristics of a marital relationship
in which such a union is achieved can be partially captured by looking at
the dimensions of the marital relationship in three areas of contrast: marital
equality versus hierarchy, cooperation versus competition, and commitment
versus evasion" (p. 412).
O'Connell (1984) used the equation, NH = SE + SI, to describe the es-
sence of Adierian theory. The letters stand for a "Natural High," which, in
contrast to an artificial drug or other chemically induced high, is based on a
combination of high "self-esteem" and high "social interest."
Dreikurs's (1967) horizontal vs. vertical plane is a core concept in
working with couples. Some type of perceived inferiority or superiority
characterizes most relationship conflicts. Such an Adierian model is similar
to Bern's classic Transactional Analysis "I'm OKA'ou're OK" koan. Mosak
(1993) identified an Adierian assessment method called "life-style match-
ing." It is based on these four principles:
1. In marital choice, the life-styles ofthe partners interweave at predominantly
a nonconscious level and their relationship is based upon a "secret pact."
2. While the life-styles do not change, behavior and feelings may change from
a plus to a minus.
3. The change in valence or lack thereof depends on the good will of the
partners. . . .
4. . . . The psychological health of each spouse is not a fundamental vari-
able. Mentally Healthy people can have poor, conflict-ridden marriages,
whereas those with psychopathological diagnoses may have rather stable
. marriages. . . . (pp. 486-487)
Dreikurs (1993) stressed that choosing a mate or rejecting one is an
expression of a favorable or an unfavorable attitude. The common bond be-
tween the mates is often an identical attitude toward life—unfulfilled idealism
 Counseling Metaphors 327

or pessimism, certainty of failure, and intellectual or moral superiority. This

often unites two people in a common stand against the rest of the world.
However, when they discover that the partner also belongs to the "rest of
the world," they often begin to look down on each other. Thus, positive atti-
tudes become converted into rejection and hostility. Dreikurs identified such
specific attitudes, which are highly correlated with a couple's happiness, as
courage, "belief in one's ability to cope with whatever problems may arise.
The courageous person can succeed where the timid is bound to fail, beyond
that, the willingness to contribute, to be useful; instead of the increasingly
prevalent concern with pleasure and getting" (p. 504).
Evans and Dinkmeyer (1993) edited a special issue of individual Psy-
chology: The Journal of Adierian Theory, Research and Practice on Marriage
and Couples Counseling. Here are a few examples of how Adierian theory
has been applied from that issue to relationships.

Marriage Therapy through Strength Assessment

To shift away from the typical, long list of presenting problems by fo-
cusing instead on the strengths, Dinkmeyer (1993) urged counselors to ask
"What would your relationship be like if you were happier?" In Dinkmeyer's
recommended intervention, he stated that courageous couples have the fol-
lowing characteristics:
1. There is social interest—the capacity to give and take and to cooperate
instead of destroy.
2. They use [their] resources to build the relationship. They know there is a
positive purpose for their relationship.
3. [They see] the positive alternatives to what appears to be overwhelming
problems.
4. Courageous couples have a sense of humor and sense of perspective. . . .
(p. 413)
Carlson and Dinkmeyer (2003) also developed a video-based program.
Training In Marriage Enrichment. They list the following skills as being the
most important ones for couples: making the relationship a priority; commu-
nicating regularly; practicing encouragement; having marriage meetings and
choices; setting up negotiations, rules, and conflict resolution; and having
regular fun.

The Connexions Focusing Technique

With their Connexions Focusing Technique, Bettner and Lew (1993)

addressed the fundamental Adierian equalitarian concept. Adler (as cited in
Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1978) stated.
328 Daniel Eckstein and David Sarnoff

The fundamental guarantee of marriage, the meaning of marital happiness is

the feeling that you are worthwhile, that you cannot be replaced, that your
partner needs you, that you are acting well, and that you are a fellow human
and a true friend, (p. 125)

Dreikurs (1946) addressed the function by noting that such a couple relation-
ship is not merely one of conscious choice and logical conclusions:
It is based more profoundly upon the integration ofthe two personalities... As
long as both partners feel that they are equals who are cherished and accepted
as they are (not as they might be), they can approach each other and life's tasks
with a feeling of togetherness, mutual respect, and encouragement. When
people feel discouraged, believing they are not good enough or not valued
by their partner, their self-esteem is threatened. Their attention is now drawn
away from the task at hand and toward self defense. This is how problems
become conflicts. Each new difficulty becomes a battleground upon which
the partners fight for personal prestige. Discouragement lies behind these fights
and conflicts. It is discouragement about being valued which leads people to
fight for significance. Quantum theory also provides other concepts familiar
to Adierian theory, such as universal connectedness of all matter (holism),
observer-participancy in creation (phenomenology), and complimentarity of
mind and matter, (pp. 83-84)

Conway (2000) applied the Connexions Focusing Technique construct

so that counselors could help partners gain insight into how their childhoods
influence their beliefs about gender roles. Partners can then work together to
replace their mistaken beliefs and strategies concurrently.
The "Crucial Cs" that people strive for are (a) to connect w\th others in
order to feel that they belong. Being dependent on others for his or her very
survival, a child must figure out a way to fit in; (b) to feel capable, to feel that
they will grow and improve; and (c) feel significant, to feel that they count.
Another C, courage, is related to how the individual attains the other three
Cs. A person with courage finds positive, socially useful ways to connect, to
feel capable, and to count (Lew & Bettner, 1993, p. 498).

Adierian Metaphors

Kopp and Eckstein (2004) have used both metaphors and early recollec-
tions as a way of learning about core personality wants, needs, and values.
Kopp and Eckstein proposed that metaphors can be grouped into the follow-
ing six categories: (a) metaphors that represent one's image of self; (b) those
that represent one's image of others; (c) those that represent one's image of
situations (life); (d) those that represent one's understanding of the relation-
ships between self and self; (e) self and others; and (f) self and situations. Four
 Counseling Metaphors 329

representative relationship metaphors are (a) the As and Hs of Relationships,

(b) Relationship as a Three-legged Sack Race, (c) Walls and Windows, and
(d) Cracking the Shell.
The As and Hs of relationships. Consider the following analogy in-
volving the letter "A" contrasted with the letter "H." A former consulting
colleague of the first author described the insights he gained from marital
counseling through three significant marital partner relationships.
His first two partnerships he described as being the letter "A." Consider
the three lines comprising the letter: one straight line on the left, a leaning
line on right connected at the top and lastly the cross bar between them.
In his first marriage his wife "leaned" heavily against him. The connecting
cross bar (their relationship) while strong, bore so much, it eventually col-
lapsed from the sheer continuous pressure on it. With this weight it didn't
work out. In his second relationship, which he described as rescuing the
"wounded bird" (his hurt partner), there was no possibility for long-term
growth together.
His third relationship he compared to the letter "H." This consisted of
two strong independent lines but the connecting "cross bar" line showed
their interdependence was not as strong. Thus, in their personal strength,
there was less power between them because of more "upright parallel" lines.
The H metaphor can be restated to mean that each individual in a relation-
ship leading to marriage is to be of equal strength as a foundation of this
new family unit. Pillars will not support a building unless they are firmly
anchored, placed in parallel positions, and bear equal weight.
Relationship as a three-legged sack race. This metaphor is another way
of contrasting the following three different attachment styles. The image of
using a county fair couples' burlap "sack race" is used to illustrate the various
ways of bonding with other attachment styles. "All four legs in the sack" is
an example of enmeshment. "No legs in the sack" indicates disengagement,
two or more individuals living parallel lives under the same roof. "One leg
in the sack and one out" represents an interdependent relationship while
simultaneously paradoxically valuing and honoring each individual as just
that (Eckstein, Leventhal, Bentley, & Kelley, 1999).
Bartholomew (1997) conceptualized four prototypic attachment patterns
which are defined in terms of the intersection of two underlying dimen-
sions—how positive to negative models of the self are and how positive to
negative models of hypothetical others are (see Figure 1). The self-model
dimensions are associated with the degree of the emotional dependence
on others for self-validation. For example, a positive self-model reflects an
internalized sense of self work that is not dependent on ongoing external
validation. A negative self-model is associated with anxiety regarding ac-
ceptance and rejection in close relationships. The other-model dimension
330 Daniel Eckstein and David Sarnoff

Model of Other
Model of Self Positive Negative

Positive Secure Preoccupied

Negative Dismissing Fearful

Figure 1. Four-category model of adult attachment. Adapted from

Bartholomew (1997).

is based on perceiving availability and supportiveness from others. Positive

other-models actively seek out intimacy and support in close relationships;
negative other-models result in avoidance of intimacy.
Individuals who are characterized by a positive image of the self and
positive images of others generally received consistently responsive caretak-
ing in childhood. Such a secure typology is thus high on both autonomy
and intimacy; such individuals are comfortable using others as a source of
support when needed.
Inconsistent parenting, particularly if accompanied by messages of pa-
rental devotion, may lead children to conclude that they are to blame for
any lack of love from caretakers. Such preoccupied individuals are often
overly concerned with their attachment needs; they actively seek to have
those needs fulfilled in their close relationships. This results in an overly de-
pendent style in which personal validation is sought through gaining others'
acceptance and approval.
Waits and windows. This metaphor was inspired by an article by Shel-
lenberger and Hoffman (1999). They described this useful suggestion as
being originally suggested by Glass and Wright (1997). Here is a synopsis of
the case described.
A minister and his wife sought couple's counseling. In the early sessions,
the wife accused the husband of having an affair with the church secretary,
something he vehemently denied. One day, however, the phone rang at their
home—the husband answered it. Intending to make a call herself, the wife
innocently picked up the receiver in another room. She overheard her hus-
band and the secretary discussing their relationship in an intimate way that
confirmed her suspicions about the affair that she had always suspected.
Confronted in therapy with the truth the husband tearfully acknowledged
the lie he had been living. Rather than just leaving the home immediately or
having him leave, they both committed to a problem-solving strategy with
 Counseling Metaphors 331

their therapist. Over several sessions they worked on repairing their torn
relationship. They both decided that they would stay together and that his
relationship with the church secretary would end.
Here the therapist suggested the "walls and windows" intervention. The
"wall" being created was between the couple themselves and the church
secretary. To demonstrate their commitment and alignment on the issue,
they decided as a couple to meet with the secretary to show their resolve
in erecting a wall between them and the woman. That concretely translated
to the woman's leaving her position, and it included the couple's going
together to the Board of Deacons and acknowledging the affair and asking
and receiving their forgiveness. The "windows" aspect of the intervention
involved the gradual "opening" and the reestablishmentof the shattered trust
that had occurred between them. "Opening windows" became a metaphor
ofthe reopening of their hearts to one another during subsequent counseling
sessions with the therapist.
Here is an example of how the "walls and windows" metaphor can be
applied both intrapersonally as well as with the couple:

1. Begin by taking an intrapersonal, within yourself ("you-to-you") approach;

for example, what has been your successful previous history on the con-
cept of walls (boundaries) that you have set between you and someone
or something (i.e., addictive behavior)? Cite examples of when and how
you successfully created a needed wall. Cite examples of walls that needed
to be set that were not. What were the challenges and resistances that
interfered?
2. Now focus on your past personal interpersonal history between you and
your partner. Cite examples of when and how you successfully created a
needed wall. Cite examples of walls that needed to be set that were not.
What were the challenges and resistances that interfered?
3. Last, consider your present relationship. Cite examples of when and how
you successfully created a needed wall. Cite examples of walls that needed
to be set that were not. What were the challenges and resistances that
interfered?
4. Discuss how walls and windows can be applied to you now.
5. Develop an action plan, a series of beginning, intermediate, and long-range
strategies to use the concept of walls ("closing") and of windows ("opening")
in your relationship. (Eckstein, 2002, p. 344)

Cracking the shell. What follows is a personal metaphor written by

the first author as part of a 9-month study in cross-cultural appreciation with
Jean Houston in 1984. During a trip to Egypt, Eckstein proposed and was
later married in the ancient temple of Abydos on the Nile River. He used the
metaphor of "cracking the shell" to describe his own armor. The image of a
turtle is characteristic of many men. They often have strong resilient shells
332 Daniel Eckstein and David SarnoiY

on top, coupled with a very tender, vulnerable belly below. Eckstein wrote
this story the night before his wedding.
Once upon a time in the land of Id, there lived a turtle named Leinad.
He had a very hard brown and black shell that covered his black and orange
head, tail, paws, and feet. He was blessed to be born the first born of two
wise turtle priest orators who cared very much for him and his three younger
brothers and sisters.
At an early age, Leinad had a profound experience of something much
larger than himself. It came to him in the quietness ofthe night and in the
music he heard at sundown and sunrise down by the watering hole. He felt
it in the bright yellow sunshine, in the cool green grass, the oozy slick black
mud, and in the gentle raindrops cascading off his durable shell. Although
he didn't fully grasp the meaning of it all, at age four he went forth and dedi-
cated his life to understanding and serving that Vast Force. "Suffer the little
turtles and let them come unto me," he heard his father say that day.
In the years that followed Leinad went to school with his friends. There
he struggled with subjects like reading and writing. He wrote with a different
claw than most of his classmates, and he often saw the letters in books and
on the board backwards and upside down. Thus, he didn't do too well in
his studies. Besides, there was so much excitement all around the forest he
could hardly sit still in those rock desks.
He especially cringed when the teacher recited poems like "What are
little girl turtles made of? Sugar and spice and everything nice! And what
are little boy turtles made of? Nails and shells and puppy dog tails." He was
always in the "redbird" slow-learner class while most of his friends were in
the accelerated "bluebird" class. Fortunately, there was one time each day
they all went outside and played games involving kicking and throwing in
the forest. There he felt alive, happy, and important. Thus, Leinad learned he
was strong and could run fast, which is still pretty slow as turtles go.
[Leinad signs up for the year long Mystery School with Jean Houston.]
During that year he realized that at times he was not remembering the truth;
at other times he was remembering the truth but not obeying it; and in still
other moments he was obeying that personal inner truth but was being fear-
ful of the awesome force and responsibility that came with it.
During the classes he was especially attracted to and simultaneously
afraid of a particular female. Her name was Lorac, and her piercing eyes
were jet black, with the kind of knowing penetration reflecting ancient
wisdom.
"I am so excited being in her presence," he thought. "But 1 am also afraid
of such a powerful being, for one terrible look of her eye sent lightning bolts
capable of utter destruction." He knew that many men feared the power of
this and similar turtles, calling them "witches," burning many of them in
 Counseling Metaphors 333

great fires. Their fear was that the force of this female turtle seemed to con-
tain the very essence of life and death itself. "Don't trust her for she'll take
you off and have you chopped up and made into a soup," he lamented.
Nonetheless, mustering all his courage, he timidly approached her with
the insight, "I just realized why I've avoided you these past months. You
cracked my shell open and chopped off my head in another era, but I'm
seriously considering risking it again." "Funny, lots of men say that to me,"
she replied in a friendly way.
"This is not part of my five-year plan," the two free and independent
turtles proudly proclaimed. In the days that followed, they spent many happy
moments crawling, swimming, sunning, sleeping, and other various activi-
ties which make turtles squeal in happy, happy delight.
In his ecstasy, Leinad also confronted his great fears, deep hurtful beliefs
that he had spent many years striving to overcome, such as "You never do it
right—she'll reject you eventually—she'll break you open." One particular
theme he called the "Cinderella complex," that being that he was a desir-
able turtle for a few hours, but that at midnight he would turn into an orange
pumpkin.
"You've never stayed in a relationship long enough to test your hypoth-
esis," she gently confronted. "Let's pretend it's 12:01 right now." She also
wrote a poem of a turtle that had a vision of the wise sorcerer who said to
the knight, "You will slay no dragons or fight no battles that you will not find
in your inner most heart."
[After spending an afternoon in silent meditations in the Kings Chamber
in Egypt]: That night they seemed closer than ever before. It was like an inner
wall, a secret hall that had protected Leinad was about to be opened. Indeed
no one had ever been in that cherished inner temple. A long withheld tear
rolled from his eye, "Please do not crack my shell—for, yes, it is my prison,
but it also is my fortress," he sobbed. "And my shell is so hard because my
heart is so soft; when the hurt and angry arrows are shot at me I must be able
to protect myself. So please don't remove my shell and open that door unless
you really want to be there," he pleaded.
"Nay, nay, my beautiful, gentle one," she replied. "For in my destruction
there is also a healing—you are not just your shell. And I do believe you can
crack open your own shell in such a subtle way that it is still there for func-
tional protection, but there is also a secret exit and entry to and from that will
allow you to once again fly with the eagles. And, besides, I need you also,"
Lorac continued lovingly stroking his vulnerable underbelly. "For I too have
many dents from other times, I need you to help me touch and heal the parts
of me I cannot reach by myself. Besides, I cannot open that door from the
outside; rather the only latch is from within your heart—it is you who must
open that door."
334 Daniel Eckstein and David Sarnoff

Then slowly, ever so slowly, the shell was cracked, the protective walls
fell down, and the door to the temple of his heart was opened. And so it was
that Leinad experienced a relationship at a level previously unknown to him,
and it was good, very good.
One day two other turtles invited them to join together in a celebration
of transformational union. They too had discovered in each other what they
called "twin flames," or lifelong partners, as part of their study with the orator
Neaj. Thus, in a sacred temple of Abidos along the Nile in Egypt surrounded
by loving turtles from many lands, the four of them were raised on a sacrificial
stone. Those that witnessed the event that day swore a lightning bolt from
heaven pierced their shields and deeply united them and all fellow partici-
pants in a moment that melted all separation and linked them together
forever in love that day in the ancient land that bonds souls and blends
hearts. And the great winged one was seen hovering over them all whisper-
ing, "Welcome home, my brothers and sisters. Welcome home."

Integrative Case Study

The following case study integrating the four metaphors is based on a

couples counseling intervention by the second author. The case study that
follows describes a couple in conjoint marital therapy from the perspective
of the four metaphors.
Mark and Jane met 15 years ago when Jane came to work as a secre-
tary in Mark's advertising business. They had each been previously divorced.
Through working together, an attraction developed. They started dating, and
soon they fell in love and got married.
However their relationship was definitely an A as opposed to an H. They
both were not functioning well emotionally. They relied on drugs and alco-
hol to ease their wounds from childhood and from previous relationships.
They tried to lean on each other as people in A relationships often do and
ended up butting heads quite often. He would attempt to control her with
verbal commands and belittling condemnations. She would get angry and
curse him, and at times he even physically abused her.
Mark had been "cracked open" in the time when he fell in love with Jane
and when he realized that he was abusing her and at risk of losing her, he
made up his mind to quit drinking. He also began treating her a little better.
They had a son.
After three years of marriage, while they were happier for a while, the
basic A structure of their relationship had not changed. They began arguing
frequently. They sought marital therapy feeling desperate about their situa-
tion when their son was 4 years old.
 Counseling Metaphors 335

Their relationship had deteriorated so much when they started counsel-

ing that at times Jane would become angry and walk out of the sessions. She
revealed having a secret affair with another employee at their office. Mark
was devastated emotionally by this and went to his medical doctor to get
antidepressant medication. Although they both still wanted to make the mar-
riage work, forgiveness was difficult for both of them.
The counseling at this point consisted of putting up some "walls." Jane
agreed to end the affair. She also wanted to move to her own apartment to
find herself and to decide what she really wanted to do. She moved out and
soon began to feel a little better about herself. This was the beginning of some
feelings of independence and hope of developing an H relationship, but they
still had a long way to go. In terms of the three-legged sack race, they were
able to cooperate well in arranging to pick up their son and coordinate child
care, school, transportation, and visitation. They could communicate well as
long as the conversations did not become personal.
During the period of separation, Mark was very lonely and depressed.
Many of his friends told him that because she had cheated on him and
moved out, he should divorce her. Yet his shell had been so "cracked open"
in falling in love with her that he decided to wait; he hoped some new "win-
dows" could be opened between them.
After about 11 months of separation, Mark and Jane reunited. Jane agreed
to come back home, and they were happy for a while. She had stopped
drinking and using drugs, and she had obtained part-time employment at a
different office. They felt happy and terminated their marital therapy.
However, soon more problems surfaced. The dependence Mark had on
Jane and his frustration at not being with her had caused him to have feelings
that he was unwilling to tolerate. He had become addicted to prescription
pain medications that he had originally received from his medical doctor for
an elbow injury. As the addiction worsened, he had problems at work, had
lapses in memory, and even had a few car accidents. This was all causing
Jane to become more and more angry and frustrated. She began yelling at
him. Their arguments escalated; soon they were back in therapy again. They
still had not developed an H relationship and were back like an A, leaning
on each other.
They then began a new phase of their therapy in which they both rec-
ognized and took responsibility for their own faults in the relationship and
recognized the necessity of really moving from the A structure to the H struc-
ture. There had to be a solid wall built between Mark and his drug use.
He started attending A.A. meetings, working with a sponsor, and going to
church. He realized that he needed to have his own emotional recovery and
admitted to being arrogant and controlling in his past relationship with Jane
and people in general.
336 Daniel Eckstein and David Sarnoff

Jane was able to admit that her childhood pain was unresolved, leading
to her inability to control her anger. She began individual therapy to improve
her own self-esteem and self-control. Both of them seemed more mature,
more responsible, and both hoped now that there was an opportunity for
them to be happier than they ever had been before.
With metaphorical walls keeping out extramarital affairs as well as drug
and alcohol abuse, they continued their ability to run a good three-legged
sack race with regards to supporting themselves financially and to raising
their son. They also resurrected fond memories of when they both had their
hearts "cracked open." For the first time, they were able to feel encouraged
about having an H relationship in the future.
Adler (1927) was one of the first people to recommend working psycho-
therapeutically with families in a systemic way. Yet the name of his theory.
Individual Psychology, stresses the importance of obtaining a unique and
holistic understanding of an individual. Finding a healthy balance between
the individual/couple systems is one way of describing how couples need to
develop stable and satisfying H relationships.
One way Adierian psychotherapists help with this is to provide encour-
agement to the couple as individuals and as a couple. Often couples like
Jane and Mark are discouraged by all the pain of their dysfunction. Adierian
therapists have guided couples in developing healthy relationships through
the cultivation of social interest for one another. This is related to the im-
portance of couples' understanding one another as individuals. Individual
Psychology offers the richness of early memories and lifestyle analysis which
can be helpful in this regard.
In terms of the metaphors for Jane and Mark, they have been successful
in building walls in the past. One of their challenges for their future work
will be to build in windows to be able to see each other clearly and compas-
sionately. We hope that as they progress in becoming stronger and healthier
as individuals, they will be able to open their doors to let one another in. Ide-
ally, they will also continue the heart's "cracking open" process and expand
their interdependent skills in the three-legged sack race form as mentioned
earlier in this article.
One way in which many couples are becoming more and more de-
pendent on each other is economically as middle-class incomes continue
to shrink in relation to the cost of living. This is a threat to some previ-
ously healthy H relationships, where there is potential for financially stressed
couples to lean on one another, becoming an A and engaging in power
struggles. Adierian therapists have been successful in helping couples with
these issues (Freeman, Carlson, & Sperry, 1993).
 Counseling Metaphors 337

References

Adler, A. (1927). The practice and theory of Individual Psychology. New

York: Harcourt, Brace.
Angus, L. E., & Rennis, D. L. (1988). Therapist participation in metaphor
generation: Collaborative and noncollaborative styles. Psychotherapy, 25,
552-560.
Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (Eds.). (1956). The Individual Psy-
chology of Alfred Adler. New York: Harper & Row.
Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (Eds.). (1978). Cooperation between
the sexes: Writings on women, love, and marriage. New York: Anchor.
Bartholomew, K. (1997). Adult attachment processes: Individual and
couple perspectives. British journal of Medical Psychology, 70, 249-263.
Bettner, B. L., & Lew, A. (1993). The Connexions Focusing Technique for
couples therapy: A model for understanding lifestyle and complementarity in
couples. Individual Psychology: The Journal of Adierian Theory, Research &
Practice, 49(3/4), 372-391.
Blanton, P. W. (2000). The Adierian perspective in the context of contem-
porary marriages. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 56(4), 211-212.
Bowers, M. B. SteidI, J., Robnovitch, D., Brenner, J., & Nelson, J. (1980).
Psychotic illness in midlife. InW. H. Norton &T.J.Scaramella(Des.), Mid-life:
Developmental and clinical issues {pp. 73-84). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Carlson, J., & Dinkmeyer, D. (2003). TIME for a better marriage. Attas-
cadero, CA: Impact.
Carlson, J., Watts, R., & Maniacci, M. (2006). Adierian therapy Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Conway, C. E. (2000). Using the Crucial Cs to explore gender roles with
couples. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 56(4), 495-501.
Coontz, S. (2006). Marriage: A history from obedience to intimacy or
how love conquered marriage. New York: Viking.
Dinkmeyer, D., Sr. (1993). Marriage therapy through strength assess-
ment. Individual Psychology: The Journal of Adierian Theory, Research &
Practice, 49(3/4), 412-418.
Dreikurs, R. (1946). The challenge of marriage. New York: Hawthorn.
Dreikurs, R. (1967). Psychodynamics, psychotherapy, and counseling.
Chicago: Alfred Adler Institute of Chicago
Dreikurs, R. (1993). Determinants of changing attitudes of marital part-
ners toward each other. Individual Psychology: The Journal of Adierian
Theory Research & Practice, 49(3/4), 488-505.
338 Daniel Eckstein and David Sarnoff

Eckstein, D. (2002). Walls and windows. The Family Journal, 10(3), 343-344.
Eckstein, D., Levanthal, M., Bentley, S., & Kelley, S. (1999). Relation-
ships as a "three-legged sack race." The Family Journal, 7(4), 399-405.
Evans, T, & Dinkmeyer, D. (Eds.). (1993). Marriage and Eamily Therapy
[Special issue]. Individual Psychology: The Journal of Adierian Theory, Re-
search & Practice, 49(3/4).
Ereeman, C, Carlson, J., & Sperry, L. (1993). Adierian marital therapy
strategies with middle income couples facing financial stress. The American
Journal of Family Therapy 21(4), 324-332.
Glass, S. R., & Wright, T C. (1997). Reconstructing marriages after the
trauma of infidelity. In W. K. Halford & H. J. Markman (Eds.), Clinical hand-
book of marriage & couple interventions (pp. 471-507). London: John Wiley
& Sons.
Kopp, R., & Eckstein, D. A. (2004). Using early recollections and cli-
ent-generated metaphors in Adierian therapy. The Journal of Individual
Psychology 60(2), 163-174.
Kopp, S. B. (1971). Guru: Metaphors from a psychotherapist. Palo Alto,
CA: Science and Behavior Books.
Leary, D. (1990). Metaphors in the history of psychology. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Lew, A., & Bettner, B. L. (1993). The Connexions Eocusing Technique
for using early recollections. Individual Psychology, 49, 166-184.
Lyddon, W., Clay, A., & Sparks, C. (2001). Metaphor and change in
counseWng. Journal of Counseling and Development, 79(3), 269-274.
Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed.) New York:
Van Nostrand.
May, R. (1995). Love and v\/ill. New York: Delacorte Press.
Mosak, H. (1993). Classics: Introduction. Individual Psychology: The
Journal of Adierian Theory, Research & Practice, 49(3/4), 486-487.
O'Connell, W. E. (1984). Humanistic identification. Journal of Individ-
ual Psychology 21, 44-47.
Opdyke, J. D. (2006, March 27). Love & money. The Wall Street Journal,
p. R1,3.
Shellenberger, S., & Hoffman, S. (1999). Creating a safe emotional en-
vironment in Systematic Couples Therapy. Innovations in Clinical Practice,
17, 65-84.
Steiner, L. M. (Ed.). (2006). Mommy Wars: Stay-at-home and career
moms face off on their choices, their lives, and their families. New York:
Random House.
Tyre, P. (2006, March 6). Smart moms, hard choices. Newsweek, 55.
Waite, L. J., Browning, D., et al. (2002). Does divorce make people
/?appy.''Washington, DC: Institute of American Values.