|
|
|
Dr. Bush's Fail-proof Infidelity Elixir
A review of
Intimacy After Infidelity: How to Rebuild & Affair-proof Your
Marriage
|
Evolutionary psychologists might well say we can't help it, that it's in
our genes, especially in the genes of males. But some neuroscientists say
that this is like saying, "the Devil made me do it!"
— a refusal to take
responsibility for being more than a knee-jerk response to biology.
The authors claim this is a how-to book —
how to avoid the pain of another infidelity by understanding why "he" was
unfaithful. I trudged through the first forty pages of this book
— feeling it ought to be called,
"Infidelity for Dummies." So many conclusions were simplistic and
absolute, such as suggesting that a man's infidelity is always
predictable, as is its timing. I say "a man," because the authors insist
on using the male pronoun, "he" all the time. They justify doing this by
declaring they feel more women than men will read the book. The result of
this was a revisitation of the way so many books and research, used to,
and still do in many cases, leave out women, and so leave women feeling
vulnerable to being betrayed, as though it is the woman who is left to
"fix" the infidelity, and who is responsible for it in the first place. It
reminded me of the many superficial and sexist women's magazines with
articles on "How to Keep Your Husband from Straying," by meeting him at
the door dressed in Saran wrap, becoming more proficient with makeup,
baking a better pie, and such. Such thinking, unfortunately, is still a
common feature of even present-day evolutionary psychological theory;
i.e., that it is mainly men who are unfaithful and it is to be expected
they will be. The authors also insist that what they are writing, although
they deal with only heterosexual couples, is really for everyone
— gay and lesbian as well. But I
hardly think the invisible gays and lesbians will feel included. The
inevitable result of saying: "We are only talking about heterosexual
couples, and using the male pronouns ("for simplicity's sake'"), is to
render gays and lesbians and women invisible. When the author's say: "He
was unfaithful to you..." but don't speak of how "She was unfaithful to
you," then, clearly, the authors are reinforcing the idea that this book
is only for women and heterosexual couples.
The authors also make absolute claims: "If you never want this to happen
again, this book is for you."
And archaic attitudes, "He was the one person you gave your body to..."
[p. 16] In this day and age?
I dislike the term, "pop
psychology," but it seems remarkably apt to describe this book, as it hardly
seems to be written for a very sophisticated reader. They happily accept old
platitudes: "Emotional self-awareness and emotional self-disclosure are not
strong suits for most guys." [p. 48] There is no attempt to explain why not,
or to explore this idea; the book just carried on from this accepted
disclosure. Was I reading a sequel to "Men are from Mars..."? I find one of
the most destructive ideas to be the thinking which suggests that men or women
are limited in their abilities to think or feel. Individual males or females
may be more or less developed emotionally or intellectually, and we are
learning more and more all the time about traits which might be stronger, in
general, in one sex or another. But the evidence is not hard, and there are
still great difficulties separating genetics from environment
— and every time we reinforce old ideas, we may be doing nothing more
than mumbling outdated platitudes. Remember that it was only one hundred years
ago that people believed that women who developed their brains would shrink
their ovaries.
We have more absolutist, unsubtle ideas presented. The authors suggest there
are four stages in any relationship, and "Infidelities always happen at the
same point in a Long Term Love Relationship (or "LTLR"), as they call it.
"Always." These relationship stages are: "Sweet Symbiosis, Soured Symbiosis,
Differentiation, and Synthesis." Of course, have you guessed? The infidelities
occur during the, "Soured Symbiosis" stage. This of course follows on the
"Sweet Symbiosis" stage. And then the authors declare that they always know
"exactly where you and your partner are in the developmental model." Not too
hard to figure out; if someone is going to be unfaithful it seems pretty
obvious it would be in the "soured" period.
Deal Breakers
The authors say that they
have found only three things that "absolutely doom a LTLR." The first is that
neither was ever in love with the other. The second is, "Over a long period of
time...so much anger and hurt were inflicted on the other that it killed the
love that was there." The third is that, "One or both partners refuse to own
their parts in the difficulties in the LTLR and/or they refuse to sincerely
work on themselves and their contributions to the relationship's problems."
The authors also state they do not include drug, alcohol, and physical abuse
because those problems can be "overcome" "if caught in time." Yet, physical
abuse is most often declared a deal breaker by most psychologists. And how
does one have a relationship with an addict whose brain is not present? I
think this facile dismissal of these most serious issues exemplify what I find
most lacking in this book — a serious
consideration of the possible depths of angst and cruelty. I don't find these
three categories at all helpful. The book is replete with such categories
— types of relationships, stages in a
relationship, dealbreakers, types of intimacies. Although categories can
sometimes be helpful to show connections and similarities, they can also
reduce people to types in a way that can sometimes dehumanize and ignore
individualities, ranges, subtleties, causes, expressions. Again this book
reminds me of "Men are from Mars..."; "All men are"; "all women are"; all
relationships can be slotted in a few categories.
Once we can easily categorize, then we can easily "cure." I don't feel any
depth of heart in this book — it is more
like a cookbook for how to bake a cake, rather than a book to help with some
of the most painful and difficult life experiences. To emphasize that, there
are Chapter Reviews at the end of each chapter to help one review, like doing
homework, in case one didn't get it the first time. There is a practical
quality about this book, steps to repair a broken relationship, and to prevent
further damage. But, again, these steps pay almost no attention beyond lip
service to the seriousness of the topic. The authors' statement that, "The
recipe for true LTLR is a very simple one:..."becoming strong in the three
intimacies is your relationship's best defense against future infidelity..."
Again, calling a long-term love relationship an LTLR reminds me of the
initializing of diseases in TV ads these days, and I expected the authors any
minute to suggest some kind of medication for anyone suffering from an LTLR
gone sour in its symbiosis. The authors speak about the importance of
intimacy, and then resort to anti-intimacy by reducing love affairs to LTLRs.
I didn't feel any intimacy from the authors toward me, the reader.
It is not so much that the authors gave false information, as that what they
say is superficial, and frankly, condescending and the initializing causes too
much distance — a particular problem in a
book which wants to deliver the message that intimacy is so important. The
following, for instance, exemplifies this: "What if your partner isn't
motivated to work on his own SI while you work on yours? What if he gives a
half-hearted effort and doesn't stick with the ESA exercise? Does it make any
sense for you to persevere in developing your SI? Absolutely it does. The more
self-intimate you are, the clearer you can see your choices and your part in
your LTLR..." I found myself so busy trying to remember what all the initials
stood for that the actual content of the message was distanced and muddled in
my mind. I was not only trying to understand what the authors were saying, but
having to decipher their "in" code at the same time.
Surely I found some value in this book. Yes, I did. I quote from the book
where the authors write about Sweet Symbiosis, which, to them, is the
honeymoon stage in any relationship: "...symbiosis is about dependency. That
doesn't sound like a good thing. But dependency and symbiosis get a bad rap;
we're all dependent beings to one extent or another. Many therapists
think of symbiosis as a negative thing, but it's not necessarily so. Just ask
anyone who is in stage 1!"
I was pleased with the authors' approach to the primacy of emotions over
intellect, and their concern that the emotions and the intellect need to work
in balance and harmony to function well. All too often, independence is
nothing more than fear of intimacy. Homo sapiens is a social animal, in which
emotions are the drivers, and touch and feeling of both the physical and
emotional kinds are essential to psychological health. The authors do
reinforce this idea periodically throughout the book. Yet, strangely, despite
this focus on intimacy and the emotions, it is their own intimacy with their
readers which is drowned and lost in their "In-Speak"
— a language they may well speak with each
other, but which any reader has to learn before the book has any real meaning.
It's a bit like an American who speaks English trying to read a book in Urdu.
Well, maybe not that bad, but close.
I really wanted to like this book —
who wouldn't want to like a book which might help people aching from the
betrayal of infidelity? But I might give a couple this book before they marry,
and before any infidelity has occurred, because the approach of this book is
so cool and intellectual that my feeling is that anyone in the midst of an
infidelity might feel the authors don't really get it. It's a practical
self-help book, but its lack of emotional, intimate connection with the reader
is hardly comforting or healing. It's like a doctor without a bedside manner.
Another concern I have is that the audience of the book seems confusing. On
the one hand, it would seem to be written for a general audience, but on the
other hand, discussions of deep issues which might lead a person to challenges
in relationships, such as abandonment, abuse, coldness or indifference from
parents, traumatic events, are glossed over quite superficially. This is a
major error, as it suggests that infidelity comes easily from almost nowhere,
and so is easily healed.
The authors present us with couples in the book whom we can follow as they
follow the authors'
exercises. However, the authors tell us about them, without making them come
to life. Like an infomercial on TV, the miracle cures came without fail or
proof, and without any hitches or glitches. Follow the authors' instructions
and unfailingly all will be repaired. The cover claims, "How to Rebuild and
Affair-proof Your Marriage." Again, the infomercial approach suggesting that
this is fail-proof if you will just take Dr. Smith's Elixir. Human beings are
too complicated for anything to be fool-proof, and hyped claims tend to focus
on the commercial side of any book, rather than on seriousness value. The
authors talk, for example, about "The Three Emotions That Cause Infidelity."
These are fear, loneliness, and anger. This is such an extraordinary
simplification that it becomes unhelpful. Are to subsume every other emotion
under these three categories? I am sure the authors don't, and so I see this
as simplification for popularizing. What about sadness? Grief? Anxiety? How
about depression? How about illness or traumatic life events which can affect
a person's psyche?
I know the book assumes infidelity has already occurred, but it might have
been an idea to make this a book as I suggested —
one to be given to couples getting married, so that they have a guide book to
prevent infidelity. But the book is what it is. I still would leave out the
fool proof, affair proof, absolutist, one-and-only claims.
Ultimately, I must say I am disappointed with the book and it's shorthand, "LTLR",
"AI", the many stages and categories and the too-technical new language, which
make the book hard and even boring slogging when people are usually suffering
enough, and need easy access, not unnecessarily opaque access to helpful
information. The work to be done to heal is hard enough
— to create language blocks along the way
can even add to the difficulties. Yet, there is value in the book, which is
why I suggest giving it to a couple before commitment. People in the depths of
the betrayal of infidelity need more nurturing, less of the intellectual
approach, and more of the emotion, sensitivity, and empathy than I feel this
book gives. I think this is a pity, as the authors' do themselves acknowledge
the primacy of emotion.<
Julienne Mullette is an Australian who has lived in the United States for many years, as well as in other countries. She was educated in Scarsdale, New York and La Chatelainie in Switzerland. In addition, she received her B.A. in Philosophy from Western College, and did graduate studies at Harvard University in Psychology and Philosophy, at Miami University in Religion, and at the Instituto do Filosofia in Brazil in Philosophy. She was the founding president of ISAR ( the International Society for Astrological Research), whose founding occasioned the only mention of astrology in The Times of London. Julienne's work has been written about in The New York Times and other newspapers, magazines, and books. Julienne's radio and television programme, "You and the Cosmos," has aired weekly on National Public Radio affiliates and other radio and television stations over the past decades, and she has guested on other programmes in Canada, Australia, and the United States. Julienne was also the founding editor of KOSMOS, the in-house publication of ISAR, and The Journal of Astrological Studies. She is the author of The Moon, The Unconscious World, and of many articles published in such publications as "Considerations"; "The Mountain Astrologer"; and many others worldwide.
