To succeed in the adult world, our clients (and the rest of us) needed to learn these things. They are the things our partner and our children need from us to make our relationships work.

I do not want to imply that all of the characteristics in the Adolescent Box are of no value. There is nothing wrong, I suggest to my clients, with being tough sometimes. When we are parenting a gaggle of teenagers, we may need to be tough in setting limits and rules of conduct. There is nothing wrong with being physically strong, and how could children’s burn clinics operate if the people who work there could not “turn off” their emotions at times? Certainly, there is nothing wrong with being a good sexual partner. These attributes can help make relationships successful.

However, they are not enough. We also need to develop patience, the ability to listen and show understanding, the ability to give support and receive it from others, and the willingness to show feelings other than anger. Taken together, these characteristics provide the flexibility and range of skills that strong adults need. In many ways, I advise clients, spousal abuse counseling is about growing up. It is about learning skills and tools that we were not taught as adolescent boys. It is about learning to be more than tough and strong. It is about leaning to be an adult.

Breaking Free

If spousal violence in the home is to stop, and if relationships are to be successful, clients must break free from adolescent thinking. I also suggest that we have not been talking about “manliness” at all; we have been talking about becoming a mature adult, and the concepts apply equally to women as to men.

Core beliefs about being strong and manly must change. Mature, adult thinking and behavior must replace adolescent thinking and behavior. Adult beliefs about strength and manliness need to be restructured to include the following principles:

• A strong person does not have to hide feelings from his or her partner. A strong adult has the courage to share anger, as well as a wide array of feelings, with his or her partner appropriately and honestly, including feelings such as love, hurt, and insecurity.
• A strong person never resorts to violence to resolve problems with his or her partner. A true adult understands the negative effects of abuse, and knows that verbal and physical aggression only make matters worse. Personal dignity and self-control are more valued than getting control over one’s partner.
• A strong adult is willing to talk about problems with his or her partner, and does not avoid them. Wise strategies for solving problems are used, such as communication, negotiation, and compromise, rather than intimidation and bullying.
• Adults do not blame their partners for their own mistakes. A strong adult accepts full responsibility for handling anger inappropriately, and for stopping his or her own abusive behavior.
• A strong adult can tolerate the anxiety that comes from trusting and opening up to his or her partner, so that they can be truly intimate.
• A mature adult has the courage and self-confidence to turn to other men for support, both to give and to receive it. He sets precedent, rather than follows suit. In other words, a mature adult is not overly concerned or intimidated by the perception of others, and is not afraid to engage in behaviors that less mature people perceive as signs of weakness.
• A strong adult shows affection for his or her children without fear of making them “soft.” A mature adult teaches his or her children through example – by his or her behavior in relationships – that real strength includes things like kindness, patience, understanding, and love. A mature and strong adult never abuses others.

Challenge Beliefs about Fear and Respect

In addition to challenging beliefs about strength, aggression, and manliness, it is also important to address the belief held by many abusive clients that they are both feared and respected. The section that follows provides strategies that introduce the concept that leaders win the love and respect of others, while tyrants are feared but not respected. Clients learn that leaders and tyrants use very different behaviors in their relationships. Leaders use tools like patience, understanding, and self-sacrifice, while tyrants use tools like intimidation and violence. Clients are encouraged to choose respect rather than fear by using leadership skills during times of conflict, applying tools that foster love and respect, and avoiding tools of the tyrant that create an environment of fear.

Clients often find it helpful to discuss the concepts of respect and fear and of leaders and tyrants, to clarify these concepts, and to make a conscious choice about the sort of people they want to be in the future. These issues fit nicely into the treatment plan when addressing concepts such as the Big Picture, strength, and manhood. I begin by asking clients whether they would rather be respected or feared. Do they want to be a leader or a tyrant? Do their partners and children respect or fear them? Do they see themselves as a trusted leader in the relationship, or as a despotic tyrant? Are they neither a leader nor a tyrant, or do they think of themselves as a little of both, depending on their mood on a given day?

How do the partners and children of our clients behave when our clients get angry? Do they get anxious and shy away? Are they afraid? One client, discussed earlier in this course, wrote, “I physically and emotionally damaged my wife and caused my children inestimable pain and distress. I have seen fear in their eyes as they recognized my rage. I have noticed their avoidance of me at times and their timid demeanor with me.” To his credit, he was ashamed of the fear he had caused in his family, and he made meaningful changes. I ask clients whether they see the same fear in the eyes of their families when they recognize the clients’ rage. If so, I tell them, they need to listen carefully to the concepts that follow. Significant changes are in order.

The first thing to know about respect and fear is that respect and fear never occur at the same time. No person is simultaneously feared and respected. Although people may say, “I want to be feared and respected,” it is not possible. A feared person is not respected; respect goes to different kinds of people, people who do different sorts of things. In the same way, a respected person is not feared. Respect is the exact opposite of fear. If clients want respect, they must treat people in ways that engender respect – if they want to be feared, they must behave in ways that engender fear. They can have either fear or respect, but not both.

When I teach this concept, it often provokes an argument from at least one or two of the men or women in the group. From a young age, some people believe that fear and respect go hand in hand like burgers and fries. They do not. The following exercise is used to illustrate how different fear and respect are. First, ask clients to think of the person they feared most in their life. Have them take their time. The person feared may be someone currently in their lives, or it may be a person from their childhood: a bully in the neighborhood, an abusive stepparent, or some tormentor from their teenage years. The important thing is to think of a person whom they really feared. (Understand that I’m not talking about the kind of fear engendered by a strict parent who would spank them if they cut school or stole candy. I’m talking about genuine fear. Clients who were exposed to a truly abusive parent or stepparent know the kind of fear I’m talking about.) After clients have a person in mind, ask them to make a list of the characteristics of the feared person. What was the person like? They will come up with a list that looks like this:

The Feared Person

• Got violent and abusive when they were angry
• Was angry most of the time
• Took advantage of people smaller and weaker than themselves
• Was unpredictable, especially when using drugs or drinking
• Couldn’t be trusted
• Had no respect for the rights of others
• Liked to boss people around and order them about
• Only cared about themselves
• Had no self-control
• Was feared and hated by almost everyone

Next, ask clients to think of the person whom they most respect in their lives. Out of all the people they have known, whom do they respect the most? Have them make a list of the characteristics of the respected person. The list will look something like this:

The Respected Person

• Respected me
• Took time to listen to me
• Had good moral character, he or she usually did the right thing
• Cared about me as a person
• Respected the rights of other people
• Was willing to sacrifice for the good of others
• Had wisdom and knew right from wrong
• Could be trusted, and I could depend on them
• Had self-control, even when angry or disciplining me

Tyrant or Leader?

Now compare the two lists to illustrate the difference between the feared person and the respected person. As you compare the two lists, clients can see that they describe two different people. Not only are the feared and respected people different, they are the exact opposites of each other. The feared person, I say, is a tyrant. You can tell tyrants by the tools they use to get what they want: fear, intimidation, and violence. The tyrant gets what he or she wants by bullying others, but they are fooling themselves if they think they can act this way and also be loved or respected. Tyrants believe that fear, intimidation, and violence are the best ways to control others and get what they want out of life. If they persist in acting this way, they eventually find themselves alone, despised even by their own family, and very frequently incarcerated.

A respected person is the opposite of a tyrant. They are leaders. The people who know them do not fear them. They are not avoided, and people don’t have a timid demeanor around them. In fact, people like to be around people they respect, and look forward to their coming home because they make their families feel safe and secure. They have no desire to engender fear or to intimidate others, and they are loved and respected. You can tell a leader by the tools they use: respect for others and self-control, they are trustworthy and self-sacrificing. They are true leaders in their homes.

Fear and intimidation are the tools of a tyrant; mutual respect and trust are the tools of a leader. I tell my clients that whenever your partner does what you say out of fear of you, rather than from his or her own free choice, you have become a tyrant rather than a leader. Act like a tyrant and you will be a tyrant, a person feared but not respected. Respect goes to different kinds of people who do different sorts of things. In the same way, act like a leader and you will be a leader, a person respected but not feared. Respect is the exact opposite of fear. If you want respect, you must treat people in ways that engender respect – if you want to be feared, behave in ways that engender fear. You can have either fear or respect, but not both.

Frequently, clients will say, “Sometimes I act like a leader, and sometimes I get mad and act the way you say a tyrant acts. Doesn’t that mean I can be feared and respected at the same time?” No, I tell them, it does not. As I have said, fear and respect are polar opposites. You cannot have both. It works this way: to the extent that you act like a tyrant, you will be feared. To the extent that you start acting like a leader, people will stop fearing you and slowly start respecting you. The diagram below illustrates the concept.

Act Like a Tyrant: Use abuse, intimidation, and violence. Disrespect others, bully and force people to do what you want, ignore the concepts and skills learned in counseling.	Act Like a Leader: Show respect and kindness to others, show self-control when you are angry, put the welfare of the family first. Use the skills and concepts learned in counseling.

To the extent that clients act like tyrants, people’s feelings toward them will move toward the FEAR end of the spectrum. To the extent that they act like leaders, their feelings will move toward RESPECT.

What It Means To Be a Leader

There is nothing wrong with clients wanting to be a leader in their homes. In fact, I encourage them to become leaders. If clients have a history of getting out of The Box, if there is abuse, or if the verbal or physical hostility is evident, the relationship is crying out for someone to start to show some leadership. That person might as well be the client. Before clients take on the mantle of leadership, however, reiterate what leadership means, and what is required of a leader. Being a leader does not mean being the boss! A leader and a boss are NOT the same thing. Being a leader does not mean controlling a partner. Being a leader does not mean getting power and control over others. Being a leader does not mean that clients get their way or tell their partners what to do.

Being a leader means leading by example. It means mastering skills and concepts learned in counseling and applying them in their lives. It means making meaningful and lasting changes in their own behavior first, and then inviting others to follow their positive examples. It means respecting one’s partner at all times, staying in The Box from now on, and abandoning efforts to control or manipulate others. If that is what clients want (and they should want it), then they are on their way to becoming inspiring leaders. In time, they may become loved and respected, rather than feared and rejected.

I encourage clients to add the following concept of leadership to their Big Picture: “I want to become the best leader I can be for my family, to be a real leader. I know I have to give up any ideas about controlling others. I have to accept my partner as an equal in every way, and the only influence I will have will be through communication, persuasion, negotiation, compromise, and the example I set through my own choices.”

Address Male Privilege Issues

It is wise to address leadership issues in conjunction with “male privilege” issues. Male privilege is the belief that any man has the right to be “the boss” in any relationship with a woman. It is the belief that men should have special privileges, power and control over women, and that what a man wants, thinks, and feels is somehow more important than what a woman wants, thinks, and feels. This attitude can be expressed in countless ways in a relationship, some subtle and others not so subtle. Below are some examples of male privilege. If clients agree with any of them, the counselor has some male privilege issues to address.

Men who believe in male privilege:

• Believe that it is a man’s right to be the boss of the house.
• Believe that it is worse for a woman to have an affair than it is for a man.
• Believe that a woman should ask the man’s “permission” before she gets a job.
• Believe that it is the man’s right to make the major decisions for the family.
• Believe that disagreeable chores like changing diapers, doing the laundry, and washing dishes are “women’s work.”
• Believe that the man has the right to demand sex from his female partner whenever he wants it.
• Believe that a man should have the last word.
• Believe that a woman’s place is in the home.
• Believe that men are natural leaders, and women are natural followers.
• Believe that women are naturally inferior to men.

Some men argue that they have special rights over women because men are supposed to be the “head of the family.” They argue that because men pay the bills (a questionable belief), because men are the protectors of the home, because it has always been that way, and for a number of other reasons, men should have more power in a relationship than women have. They believe that they should be the “king of the castle,” and that their female partners accept them as the boss of the home. They should always get their way, and they should have the final say about all the important decisions in the home simply because they are men. Such men may not feel guilty about violence toward their partners because they believe that when their partners challenge their authority as head of the home, it is their “privilege” to use violence to maintain their power and control. “I’m the boss,” they say, “and if I have to get tough to control things, I will, and if I get tough it’s her fault for not doing what I said in the first place.”

There is no rational, moral, or legal reason why one partner should expect to have any special power or authority over another partner. When people strive to gain power and control over their partners they do harm to themselves, their partners, and their relationships. They harm themselves because they push others away through their attempts to dominate and control them. They waste time and energy trying to control others, rather than learning to gain control of their own lives and resolve problems. They harm their partners through endless power struggles and erosion of their self-esteem and self-confidence. They harm their relationships because their partners regard them with fear and resentment rather than love and respect.

Who should be the “head of the home?” In the sense that being the head of the home means that one partner dominates or holds power over the other partner, there should be no head of the home. Successful relationships do not have bosses; they have equal partners. The foundations of successful relationships are mutual respect, freedom of choice, and equality. Every adult has the right to live his or her life as he wishes. No partner surrenders that right when entering into a relationship with another adult. Neither partner has the right to force his or her will on the other. Once clients accept that reality – once an egalitarian relationship is established – the qualities of leadership in the home may start to emerge.

Leadership is a powerful concept for this population, and most clients respond in a positive manner. I emphasize, however, that leaders lead by changing themselves. Lead by example, by doing the things that need doing in your relationship. Stop trying to get your partner to change, focus on yourself, and start setting a positive example for others to follow. If your relationship needs more respect, start respecting more. If it needs more tolerance, start tolerating more. If it needs more communication, start communicating more. If it needs more love, start loving more. Leadership is like trying to move a string in a straight line – it must be pulled from the front, not pushed from the rear.

Chapter Three: Changing the House Rules

Unspoken Rules

Every relationship has unspoken rules about the way anger is expressed. When relationships are new, there is an unspoken rule that says, “No hostility allowed.” Over time, verbal and physical hostility may find their way into the relationship. Clients can change the unspoken “house rules” back to the original “no-hostility rule” if they learn the process by which rules in their relationship change, and apply their new skills to assertively remove hostility from their relationships.

Every relationship has rules about how to express anger. Generally, the rules are unspoken. That is, no one says, “This is how we will act when we get angry.” Thought rules are unspoken, your clients and their partners understand the rules, and the rules determine how they express anger to each other. When relationships are new (in the honeymoon period), the rule is, “We can be angry with each other, but we cannot be hostile with each other.” In most new relationships, hostility is prohibited.

It helps clients understand this concept if you define the difference between anger and hostility, as used here:

Anger: Anger is a feeling, not a behavior. It describes the way you feel, not the way you behave. For example, you can be angry about something but not let it show. You may simply “stuff” your anger.

Hostility: Hostility describes a certain way of acting. It describes what you say or do. Hostile behavior is openly aggressive, abusive, sarcastic, or antagonistic. Examples of hostile behavior are yelling, swearing, name calling, threats of violence, and violence itself. Everyone recognizes a hostile attitude when they see it.

The Honeymoon Period

In the beginning, I tell my clients, there is a honeymoon. When you first started to date your partner, how did you act when you were angry about something? Most likely, you were on your best behavior because you wanted to create a good impression. You were attracted to your partner, and because you wanted him or her to like you, you were on your best behavior. When you were angry about something, you probably just blew it off. If you are like most people, statements like, “That’s OK, don’t worry about it” were common. You instinctively knew that if you were openly hostile toward your partner on your first date, there would not be a second date. Let’s face it, no one goes out for a movie, dinner, and a beating later.

This is the unspoken rule of all new relationships, I continue. How did you act the first time you met your boss? You were on your best behavior, right? All new relationships have a honeymoon period. How did you act the first time you met your neighbors or your in-laws? Same thing – if you want a relationship to continue past the first few meetings, you have to avoid a hostile attitude. The rule about anger during the honeymoon period is, “No hostility allowed.”

Unfortunately, the rule forbidding hostility between clients and their partners did not last. They may even remember the first time they yelled at their partners, or their partners yelled at them. There was a first time. They may remember the first incident of swearing or name-calling. There was a first time for that, too. There was a first time they said something cruel or hurtful. They may not remember it, but there was a very first time. Those incidents changed the rules about the way anger was expressed in their relationships. Hostility was accepted, and a new rule emerged.

The First Rule Change

To change the rules in a relationship, the consent of both partners is usually required. It only takes one partner to suggest a rule change, but both partners must agree before the rule changes. Relationships start with the unspoken rule that no hostility is allowed, but at some point a new rule came into effect, “Verbal hostility is OK.” Clients and their partners changed the no-hostility rule and allowed hostility to become a part of their relationships.

The change probably occurred in the following manner. A problem came up, and our clients and their partners started to argue about it. The tension caused by the problem grew to levels they had not reached before. As the tension grew higher and the argument more heated, either our clients or their partners crossed the “I don’t care what I say line.” One of them became verbally hostile; one of them started to yell, swear, insult, call names, or engaged in some other form of verbal hostility.

This first open expression of hostility was reckless and irresponsible. It did two things. First, it greatly escalated the anger between the two of them, making it harder to solve the problem. Second, it created a “pull” for the other partner to join in the hostilities. When someone yells at you, what do you want to do? If you are like most people, you want to yell back. This desire to participate in the hostility is “the pull.” Verbal hostility is always hurtful, destructive, and selfish. When it comes to making permanent rule changes, it does not matter who offers the invitation first. As far the rule changes go, the important thing is whether the invitation is accepted. That is what seals the deal.

Accepting the Invitation

The first time one partner expresses verbal or physical hostility to another partner, he or she extends an invitation similar to the one below.

Any incident of open verbal hostility is an invitation given to the other partner to change the rules about how couples treat one another when they get angry. Although abusive clients often assert that their partners “started it,” it is not particularly important which partner starts the process. Suppose, for example, the client’s partner really was the first to yell. Does that mean that the rule change was his or her fault? No, it does not. A rule change is not complete until the other partner accepts it by (1) giving in to “the pull” and participating in the hostility, or (2) passively accepting the other person’s hostility without objecting to it in a meaningful way. Either course of action is a way of saying, “I accept this rule change. From now on, hostility can be a part of our relationship.”

When clients chose to participate in the verbal hostility they are saying, through their behavior, “I’ll show my partner that I can’t be pushed around. I’ll give back as good as I get. I’m OK with this change in our relationship. I’m willing to change the rules.” On the other hand, when clients passively accept the hostility without assertively objecting to it in a clear and decisive manner, they also communicate to their partners that they accept the rule change. Behaviorally, they communicate the idea, “Hostility is OK with me.” By accepting the invitation by getting verbally hostile back or through passive acceptance, the process is complete. The unspoken no-hostility rule has changed. Hostility will now become an ever-present part of their lives, and their relationship is going to be very different from now on.

The first incident of verbal hostility unlocks a door that was closed during the honeymoon period. Once unlocked, it becomes easier to go through that door again. The next time the partners get angry with each other, the yelling comes a little quicker and grows a little louder. From now on the rule is, “When we are angry with each other, verbal hostility is expected.” The hostilities increase in frequency and in severity as they grow to be comfortable with the hostility in their relationship. After a while, it seems normal. As the comfort level develops, so does the anger and frustration between them. On the other hand, expressions of love and affection come less frequently than before. The relationship is in trouble.

Before the rule change, the average tension level between them was low. There was a time when it took a lot to get them anywhere close to the “I don’t care what I say line” and out of The Box. Allowing open hostility into their relationship changes that. With every new expression of hostility between them, the average tension level rises. Eventually, any small problem or minor increase in tension pushes one partner or the other over the line.

The Second Rule Change

Living with such a high level of tension is no fun for anyone. It is no fun for the partners, who find themselves in constant verbal combat. It is certainly no fun for the children, who have to endure the unrelenting tension in the home. They cannot escape it, and may try to cope by discharging their anger and anxiety with hostility of their own. Extended family and friends often see what is happening, but they are helpless to do anything about it. Meanwhile, with every new insult and shout, the comfort level with verbal hostility grows higher.

Problems are almost unsolvable in this environment. As you have read, partners solve problems by working together as a team. In this atmosphere, unfortunately, teamwork is impossible. With all the yelling going on, the partners spend more time attacking each other than attacking the problems they face. Like ghosts that refuse to go away, old problems that were never solved continue to haunt them, and new problems give rise to even higher levels of hostility. The average tension level can even rise above the “I don’t care what I say line.” When that happens, every word between the partners carries animosity and anger.

Eventually, the second invitation is offered: “From now on, let’s get verbally AND physically hostile with each other.” This does not happen in every relationship where the door is opened to verbal abuse, but at least eight million couples a year take this next step.

The second rule change happens the same way as the first. The average tension level between the partners may already be well above the “I don’t care what I say line” and dangerously close to the “I don’t care what I do line,” with one or both partners spending a lot of time outside of The Box. One day, there is an incident of open verbal hostility, but this time one partner escalates beyond verbal hostility to physical hostility. The first incident of physical hostility may be relatively minor (a punched wall, a thrown dish, a pushed partner), or it may come as a vicious physical assault like an exploding volcano. Either way, the invitation is made to change the house rules.

Any physical assault upon a partner is inexcusable and outrageous. But how does the partner respond to it? The invitation to change the rules again has been made, but will the victim of the assault accept the invitation? Remember, the rule change is not complete until the second partner accepts the invitation by (1) giving in to “the pull” and participating in the physical hostility, or (2) passively accepting the other partner’s physical hostility. Either course of action is a way of saying, “I accept this rule change. From now on, physical hostility will be a part of our relationship. I’m OK with this change in our relationship. I’m willing to change the rules. From now on, when we are angry with each other, physical hostility is OK.” Once again, if partners participate in the violence or passively accept it without assertively objecting to it in a clear and decisive manner (calling the police, following the advice of a woman’s shelter, separating, etc.), they show through their behavior that they accept the new rule change. By accepting the invitation, by getting physically hostile back or through passive acceptance, the process is complete. The unspoken no-violence rule has changed. Physical hostility will become a part of their lives. As with verbal abuse, the comfort level with physical hostility grows with each new incident. Once the door to physical hostility is unlocked, it becomes more frequent and more severe over time.

Once more, participating in verbal and physical hostility is not the only way that rules are changed. Rules also change if one partner is passive or submissive when the other partner is abusive. Moving from hostility to passivity is common among the clients that I work with, and it creates its own set of problems. When one partner abuses the other, and the abused partner passively accepts it, the rule change is complete. The abusive partner will usually continue to be abusive. This is seen in the “battered woman’s syndrome,” in which the battered woman continually forgives and submits to the abusive partner. If accepted passively, abuse often escalates in frequency and severity.

Assertive Behavior

To avoid hostile or aggressive behavior, clients must become well-versed in assertive behavior. I begin by making sure that clients understand the difference between hostile, passive, and assertive behaviors.

HOSTILE BEHAVIOR: I have rights but you do not, so it is OK for me to express my anger in an aggressive and hurtful way. I do not have to take responsibility for my behavior toward you, because you deserve it. I do not care if my behavior is harmful to you and to our relationship. I want the immediate gratification of going off on you.

PASSIVE BEHAVIOR: You have rights but I do not, so it is OK for you to express your anger in an aggressive and hostile way. You do not have to take responsibility for your words and behavior towards me because I deserve it. You do not have to worry if your behavior is harmful to me and to our relationship. You can go ahead and get immediate gratification by going off. I will hold on to my own anger and find a way to stuff it. I will say nothing about the verbal abuse directed at me; I will just keep silent and apologize even when I have done nothing wrong. I will agree with my partner when I really disagree.

ASSERTIVE BEHAVIOR: We both have rights. I can express my anger to you, but I will do it in a way that is respectful and non-abusive. I take responsibility for my words and behavior towards you, and I expect you to do the same. Neither of us will abuse. We must both take responsibility for the way we express ourselves, and do so in a way that does not harm our relationship. I will put the long-term good of our relationship over the immediate gratification of expressing my anger inappropriately. I will tell you when I do not appreciate the way you are talking to me. I will remind you that yelling and insulting each other will not help. I do not talk that way to you, and I want the same consideration. I am willing to listen to you and work with you on our problems, but I am not going to be yelled at. Let’s both calm down and see what solutions we can come up with.

Turning Back the Clock

The goal of counseling is to remove verbal and physical hostility from your clients’ relationships. The skills and concepts presented in this course help them change the rules once again – to return to the time when they expressed anger without hostility. To be successful, they must make a personal commitment to avoid hostile speech and behavior in the future, and remind themselves continually that the hostility in their relationships will not stop as long as they are willing participants in it. Making a serious commitment to remove hostility from their behavior is always the first step.

Because hostility has been a part of their relationships for so long, it is going to take some time to remove it. Meaningful change does not happen over night. Removing hostility from their own behavior will not immediately heal the wounds they have inflicted on their partners. Some clients find that they stop their hostile behavior, but their partners do not. It is important to prepare once-abusive clients for situations in which their partners abuse them. Suppose a problem comes up, and the partner starts to yell and insult the client. What should clients do? The first thing they will feel is that familiar “pull” to yell or hit back. They must not give in to it.

Clients cannot always choose the situations in which they find themselves, and they certainly do not control the way their partners behave. They do choose, however, how they respond to their partners. If they choose to respond with hostile or passive behavior to a partner’s hostility, their attempt to change the rules will fail. Clients should behave assertively when confronted with hostility from a partner. For example, they need to respectfully but assertively address the issue of the yelling by telling their partners how it makes them feel, how they are trying to change their own behavior, and why it’s important that the yelling stops. Now is the time to apply everything they have learned so far about staying in The Box: warning signs, self-talk, problem solving, The Box, time-out, keeping the Big Picture, all of the homework assignments they have done; every concept in this course has prepared them for this. They need to apply what they have learned, and lead by example. Use self-talk and stay focused on the problem. Do whatever they have to do to keep themselves from responding in a hostile or a passive manner.

When clients handle conflict respectfully, assertively, and without hostility, it creates a different kind of pull on their partners. If they apply their skills and abide by the “No Hostility” rule, it creates a pull on their partners to stop the yelling and join them in stopping the hostilities. That is how they turn back the clock. Change will not happen over night. Meaningful change takes determination and work; it does not come easy. They will have to resist “the pull” to become hostile repeatedly. However, every time they successfully resist the pull, they come closer to changing the rules and removing hostility from their relationships for good.

Chapter 3: Children, Substance Abuse, and Spousal Violence

Children and Family Violence

A staff member of a women’s shelter related the following incident to me. The shelter admitted a mother and her three young children into the shelter after enduring years of horrific abuse at the hands of her alcoholic husband. Temporarily safe from their brutal father, the children talked about their experiences at home. “What was it like at home?” asked the shelter worker. “My daddy would come home drunk at night,” replied one of the children. “He would make us go to bed and turn out the lights. Then he would beat up mommy. We were afraid to get out of bed, but we could hear him hitting her. We could hear mommy crying.” The shelter worker asked, “Wasn’t it awful laying there in the dark listening to your mommy being hurt?” “No,” the child answered. “The worse part was when he stopped. Then it was quiet, and we didn’t know what happened to mommy.”

Of all the different groups in our society, children are the most vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Children do not choose their parents. Dependent upon the adults around them, they have no control over the way their parents act. The adults in their lives have the power to make their world warm and safe – or brutal and frightening. Whether parents make their children’s world a heaven or a hell, children must live in it. They cannot leave when things go wrong at home.

For many children, things at home are terribly wrong. Child abuse, in its various forms, is a horrifying reality for far too many children. One estimate (Carlson, 1984) is that over three million children witness acts of domestic violence in their home every year. Straus and Gelles (1990) estimate that at least one-third of American children have witnessed violence between their parents. Straus (1990) reported that of the 46 million American children who were living with both parents in 1975, approximately 1.7 million were subjected to “very severe violence” at the hands of their parents. Although clients may assert that they hit their spouses, not their children, they need to understand that they cannot abuse their partners without hurting their children. Here is a brief review of research on the subject.

• In a 1983 study, sixty-five percent of the children who attempted to kill themselves had witnessed violence in their own homes (Kosky, 1983).
• A study of violent teenage boys found that exposure to family violence was associated with a positive feeling about using violence to solve their problems (Spaccerelli, Coatworth, & Bowden, 1995).
• Compared to other women, Kalmuss (1984) found that battered women were six times more likely to have been subjected to physical violence when they were children.
• Women who were abused by their husbands were found to be twice as likely to abuse their children, as compared to women who were not abused. The more violent a husband is to his wife, the more violent the wife is to her children. Women who are battered may commit the highest rates of child abuse (Straus & Gelles, 1990).
• The same study found that seventy-six percent of children who were repeatedly abused by their parents repeatedly and severely assaulted their brothers or sisters. The more violent parents were to their children, the more violent children were to their own siblings (Straus & Gelles, 1990).
• Sons who witnessed battering between parents were found to be ten times as likely to abuse their own partners. This does not mean that every child who witnesses abuse between his or her parents will eventually abuse his or her own partner. Many people who abuse come from non-violent homes, and some children from violent homes do not abuse. However, witnessing abuse as a child does seem to increase the risk of becoming an abusive partner (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980).

As you would expect, exposure of a child to family violence is associated with a number of significant childhood problems, including antisocial behavior, depression, anxiety, and school problems (Adamson & Thompson, 1998). It seems that parents who abuse each other also abuse their children, even if the children are not the ones hit. That is why many perceive children as the “hidden victims” of the violence between their parents.

Physical Abuse of Children

In a national survey of violence in American families, 90% of the parents of three-year-olds, and 34% of the parents of 15- to17-year olds, reported that they had hit their child one or more times during the year (Straus & Gelles, 1990). In most of these instances, the violence was relatively minor. However, the survey also found that at least 1.5 million children per year are subjected to severe physical abuse (such as punching, kicking, and burning) at the hands of their parents. Among this unfortunate group of children, infants were physically assaulted an average of 19 times a year, three-year-olds were assaulted an average of 32 times a year, and 17-year-olds, an average of about six times a year. Keep in mind that these are the rates of violence towards children in a national study of American homes. The problem of child abuse appears to be much more severe in homes where the mother is battered by the husband. In one study of the children of battered women, 90% of the children had also suffered physical abuse (Giles-Sims, 1985).

Parents who hit their children are probably teaching them that violence is an acceptable way of handling family problems. In the Straus (1990) survey, for example, teenagers were found to hit their parents about as often as the parents hit each other. Research also indicates that parents who engage in abusive violence toward their children or their spouses had themselves received more physical punishment as a child (Straus & Gelles, 1990). It is also the opinion of many that while most physical punishment does not turn into physical abuse, most physical abuse begins as ordinary punishment (Kadushin & Martin, 1981).

Spanking is also a model for the child’s own acts of violence. As the saying goes, violence begets more violence. When spanked, a child can easily develop core beliefs that it is OK to control and coerce another person through physical violence, and that when you are angry, it’s alright to express the anger by hitting the person you’re mad at. The studies above suggest that the more violence children experience in their homes, the more favorably inclined they are towards violence against other children, and even toward their own parents. An article in Newsday (August 15, 1978) reported that one in five parents suffered objects being thrown at them, pushing, shoving, and furious verbal abuse at the hands of their own children. It is likely, observed Newsday, that this abuse was learned “at the knee of the parent.”

I am sure that I am not alone in my belief that physical punishment is not the most effective way to teach a child to behave. To be effective, I teach my clients, discipline must educate a child. Punishment alone is not education. Punishment usually does not elicit true remorse for misbehavior, nor does it foster true sorrow for the harm that a child’s misbehavior may have caused others. Rather, physical punishment fills a child with fear, anger, and defiance, and while violence may make a child fear his or her parents, it does not effectively teach a child to respect them. More importantly, it does not teach a child how to behave more responsibly in the future. Having children take a time-out, withdrawal of privileges, rewarding positive choices, and taking time to communicate and teach are more effective methods of discipline than corporal punishment alone.

Abusive clients must not mistake hitting or spanking for discipline. Hitting and spanking are forms of punishment, and punishment alone is woefully inadequate in raising a child. Parenting takes more than punishment. Discipline and setting limits are important, but effective discipline involves finding a way to communicate values and ethics to the child. When parents are not present to watch over them, it is the values and ethics that parents have taught their children that guide them in making the right choices and doing the right thing. On the other hand, if parents rely on spanking to get their children to behave, children may do the right thing when they are watching; they want to avoid punishment. However, when parents are not present and the children are not afraid of being caught, the fear of punishment loses its influence, and children may not make the right choice.

I remember one study of moral development in children that compared delinquents in juvenile hall with schoolchildren of the same age from the same neighborhood. Both groups of children were asked questions like, “Why shouldn’t a person steal?” The schoolchildren provided answers like, “Because it is wrong to take something you haven’t earned. No one will trust you if you steal. It hurts when people steal something from you.” The delinquents, on the other hand, provided answers such as “Because you might get caught, and you might end up in jail.” Do you see the difference in their answers? The schoolchildren had internalized important values and social ethics, while the delinquents had not. When the two groups were compared further, it was found that the delinquents had been subjected to far more physical punishment by their parents than the school children had. The lesson is this: spanking alone does not teach children how to live their lives responsibly, and it may make the situation worse. When children misbehave, they need more than punishment. They need to learn from their parents:

• What he or she did that was wrong.
• Why that behavior was wrong.
• The natural consequences of wrongful behavior.
• How misbehavior makes others feel.
• Better choices that the child can make in the future.
• Non-violent ways to handle problems with which they are faced.

It is important to counsel clients that slapping and hitting cannot teach children the things they need to learn, no matter how often or how hard they are hit. Some parents hit their children so often that the children eventually lose all fear of parental punishment. Effective parents take time to teach their children right from wrong. When the subject arises in counseling, I advise clients that good parents control their own anger, and use their heads rather than hands to solve discipline problems. They remember that children have legal and moral rights of their own, and that they have no right to injure or inflict unjustifiable suffering upon a child in the guise of “discipline.”

Clients need to understand that verbal abuse, psychological abuse, and neglect are also ways in which parents can inflict mental pain and suffering on their children. Verbal abuse, as I am sure you know, is the use of words to deliberately inflict fear, embarrass, degrade, humiliate, or otherwise inflict emotional pain on a child. Some examples of verbal abuse are:

• You’re so stupid! You’re disgusting! You make me sick!
• One of these days, you’re going to wake up and I’ll be gone.
• I could get married again if it weren’t for you.
• You’re the reason your father and I got divorced. He couldn’t put up with you.
• I wish you had never been born.

Psychological abuse and neglect refers to non-violent actions intended to cause fear, inflict emotional pain, or cause a child humiliation. Here are some examples:

• Locking a child in a dark closet or room.
• Withholding reasonable access to clothing (forcing them to go naked), food (starving them until they are below their natural body weight), or denying children other essentials of living.
• Embarrassing or humiliating a child in public or in front of their peers.
• Forcing a child to witness violence to another member of the family.
• Refusing to speak to a young child for long periods of time.
• Inflicting pain and suffering on a child’s pet, or destroying a child’s favorite toy.

It is important that clients understand the extent of the pain and suffering that their abusive words and actions cause, and that no child, no matter what he or she has done, ever “deserves” such abuse. Verbal abuse, psychological abuse, and neglect are always destructive. If repeated over a period of years, it can result in life-long problems from which the child may never recover. There is an old saying that goes, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” This is most definitely not true. Take time to teach clients that verbal abuse is destructive, and it has long-lasting negative effects on children. In terms of the emotional pain caused, it can be just as traumatizing as “broken bones.”

When a Child Witnesses Violence

Research on children who see domestic violence in the home consistently shows that these children experience significant emotional trauma (e.g., Jaffe et al., 1989). Children who must live in a home where one or both parents suffer abuse at the hands of the other parent are denied the security and nurturing that they deserve. They live in an environment of fear, anger, resentment, shame, and guilt. Speaking of the consequences of spouse abuse on the children in the home, psychologist Lenore Walker wrote:

Children who live in a battering relationship experience the most insidious form of child abuse. Whether or not either parent physically abuses them is less important than the psychological scars they bear from watching their fathers beat their mothers. (From Battered Women, 46, 1979)

Research on children who witness abuse between parents suggests that these children experience short-term and long-term developmental problems that are similar to those of children who are themselves the target of abuse. Chief Justice Margaret Workman of the West Virginia Supreme Court, writing about the effect of family violence on children, wrote:

Spousal abuse has a tremendous impact on children. Children learn several lessons in witnessing the abuse of one of the parents. First, they learn that such behavior appears to be approved by their most important role models and that the violence toward a loved one is acceptable. Children also fail to grasp the full range of negative consequences for the violent behavior and observe, instead, the short-term reinforcements, namely compliance by the victim. Thus, they learn the use of coercive power and violence as a way to influence loved ones without being exposed to other more constructive alternatives. In addition to the effect of the destructive modeling, children who grow up in violent homes experience damaging psychological effects. (What Therapists See That Judges May Miss, 11-12, Spring, 1988).

When addressing these issues, I ask clients to write a letter that starts with the words, “The Promises I Make to My Children.” Clients are encouraged to write down the promises that they are willing to make to their children as a parent. If they do not have children of their own, they write down the promises that they are willing to make to their future children. They are encouraged to avoid talking about material things, and to write about the kind of parental relationship and home environment they promise to provide. Ideally, clients will put some thought into their promises. These promises are not like New Year’s resolutions that people make and then forget the next day. I advise clients to write down only things to which they are willing to make a real commitment. When they finish, clients put the letter somewhere handy, so they can bring out the letter and read the promises they have made when tensions in the home are running high. Clients also ask themselves whether they have kept their promises during the past week. If so, they congratulate themselves. If not, they resolve to do better during the week to come.

To help them get started, I list some of the things that I believe all children have a right to expect from their parents, such as:

• A home free of violence, neglect, sexual, psychological, and physical abuse
• A loving and supportive relationship with both of their parents
• A home where they feel safe and protected, and where their parents show consideration for each other and treat each other with respect
• To be corrected and disciplined as appropriate, but in a manner that respects them as a people in their own right
• Parents who provide for their basic emotional, educational, and material needs
• To be taught the difference between “right” and “wrong” through their parents’ words and example.

The letter can have a powerful effect upon clients. I have included parts of the letters written by two prior clients, Laura and Steven, below.

Laura’s Letter to her son, Danny

Dear Danny:

Hey baby it’s mommy. I want to start this letter by telling you that I’m sorry for putting you through the pain that you’re going through. I know that I’ve made a lot of mistakes in my life and because of them you are suffering. I’m sorry that you would see your daddy and I fight, you should have never seen those things.

I want to make things better. That’s why I’m taking these classes, so I can learn to be a better mommy. When I’m done I know that you’re going to be coming home, and when you do no matter who I’m being with I promise that you won’t see mommy getting hit or me hitting someone else. I promise that when I get frustrated I won’t take it out on you. I’ll take time for myself until I cool down. I know you love me. I’m learning a lot, and now I understand why you would start crying and screaming when you would hear me yelling. I know that I’ve made a lot of bad choices, but I’m going make things better and we’re going to be happy again.

Love,

Mommy

Steven’s Letter to his Children David and Christina

Dear David and Christina,

I want to start by telling you that I’m the happiest father in the world. You guys make me very proud to be your father. I know that you are very young, and this is only the beginning of the long road ahead of us, but the day you guys were born I knew in my mind and my heart that I would do whatever it to be with you forever. I want to be able to show you by example that no matter what the situation may be, I will always be there when you need me. I want you to be able to trust and respect me, the way I will show trust and respect for you. I will treat you as fair as I would want to be treated, with the love and respect that you deserve.

Through our years I will maintain a relationship in which you will never feel a doubt about my commitment to you. I think the most important thing growing up is feeling love and respect from your parents. If I am able to make this happen I feel our relationship will be everything I wanted from the start. We would be able to talk about anything with the confidence of knowing it will be treated with honor and respect, not ridicule. We have a long road ahead and I know it is my responsibility to keep us in the right direction, and that is my promise to you. Well, here we go on our way. I love you guys very much.

Love,

Your father xxoo

To my knowledge, both Laura and Steven have kept their promises. Before moving on to another subject, I wish to emphasize to the reader the opportunity that these issues offer as a motivation for abusive clients. Meaningful change is a long and arduous process. Applying the skills and concepts necessary to stop abuse and stay in The Box requires constant vigilance and effort, especially in the earlier stages of counseling. Some of my clients simply lacked the motivation needed to apply themselves. They no longer cared about their relationships with their spouses. Nor did they care about the potential consequences of abuse, such as going to jail or losing their jobs. They did, however, care about their children. In their love for their children, they found the will and the motivation they needed to learn, accept responsibility for their behavior, and to change. David, a prior client, comes to mind. After talking about the issues above, he started to make meaningful progress in his counseling. When I asked him about the obvious change in his attitude, he told me that he had gone home after this “lesson” and put a picture of his son on a mirror. He looked at the picture a lot. “When I look at his picture,” David said, “I think about him and about this class, and then I want to stay in The Box.”

Drugs and Alcohol Abuse

Alcohol and drug abuse are often associated with higher rates of partner abuse. Although there are inconsistencies in the literature, there is a significant body of research suggesting that the greater the drug or alcohol problem, the greater the risk of a domestic violence incident. As clients may reduce the risk of future incidents of spousal abuse by seeking help for a drug or alcohol problem, they should understand the relationship between substance abuse and partner violence. Counselors should encourage them to evaluate the role of drugs and alcohol in their lives and seek appropriate help if needed. Francisco, a former client, had an experience that illustrated the importance of this issue:

It was one week before his daughter’s birthday party, and Francisco was worried. “My wife wants a big party at the park, and so do I,” he told the men in his group. “We rented one of those inflatable things the kids like to jump in, and there will be clowns, and a barbecue, and the whole family’s invited.” When Francisco said “the whole family,” he meant everyone even remotely related to his daughter, grandparents, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, second and third cousins, everyone on the block where they lived – and their children and friends of their children. Francisco liked to do things in a big way. One person said the birthday party sounded like fun, and asked Francisco why he was so worried. “Well,” Francisco said, “my wife invited her two cousins to the party, and there’s always been bad blood between us. They’re trouble-makers. I just don’t want any problems with them. I asked my wife not to invite them, but she did anyway.”

Francisco took his counseling very seriously, and he had made strong progress during his six months in the group. We were not too worried about him. We thought he had the skill to stay in The Box and handle any problems that came up. The following week, however, Francisco was missing from the group. Three weeks passed before we saw him again. When Francisco returned to the group, we asked him where he had been. “In jail,” he told us.

“Everything was fine at the party at first,” he explained. “We started the party about ten in the morning, and everyone was just having fun. I didn’t allow any drinking at the party, and my wife’s cousins weren’t causing any trouble. Everything was going so good that about five o’clock I gave in and let someone go on a beer run. By six o’clock, the police were there. A fight broke out and I was arrested along with her cousins. It was like I forgot everything I knew.”

I do not think it was a coincidence that the fighting started after the drinking. According to Francisco, everything was peaceful for the first seven hours of the party, but one hour after the booze arrived things turned ugly. There was a lesson to learn from Francisco’s experience. There is a long tradition of research linking alcohol and drug abuse to family violence. The National Violence Against Women Survey reported that binge drinkers (people who consume excessive amounts of alcohol when they drink, but don’t drink on a daily basis) are three to five times more likely to assault their partners than those who don’t drink (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998, 2000). A study in Memphis found that 92% of the victims of domestic violence said that the attacker used drugs or alcohol during the day of the assault, and that 67% of the aggressors had used a combination of cocaine and alcohol (Brookoff, 1997). A study of Indiana men arrested for domestic violence (Roberts, 1987) found that 60% of the men were under the influence of alcohol during the domestic violence incident for which they were arrested. Another study reported that 70% of the abusers studied were under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or both at the time of the attack (Roberts, 1988).

Yet another study reported that a Latina who was in a relationship with a binge drinker was ten times more likely to be assaulted than Latinas with partners who drank less (Kaufman, Kantor, & Straus, 1990). In a study of marital violence among military personnel (Pan, Neidig, & O’Leary, 1994), researchers interviewed 11,870 randomly selected men on 38 different Army bases. They found that 5.6% of the men had engaged in severe spouse abuse (choked, beat up, threatened with a gun, etc.) at least once during the past year. They also found that compared to non-violent men, the presence of an alcohol problem elevated the risk of severe spousal violence by 128%. The existence of a drug problem increased the risk by 121%. Other studies have found that more than half of prison inmates serving time for violent crimes were drinking or using drugs at the time of the offense, and that 40% of people who killed their partners were drinking at the time of the murder (Greenfeld, 1998; Willson, 20000).

In a nationwide study of over 8,000 families (Straus & Gelles, 1990), researchers found a strong link between drinking and family violence. The greater the drinking problem was, the higher the rate of violence in the home. Among the men who abstained from alcohol, 6.8% had one or more violent acts against their spouse during the year of the study. In contrast, binge drinkers had a violence rate that was three times higher (19.2%).

Many researchers agree that there is a strong, if imperfect, correlation between drinking, drug use, and family violence – the greater the drug or alcohol problem, the greater the risk of violence. In an effort to reduce the risk of further acts of violence, it seems appropriate to encourage abusive clients with a substance abuse problem to obtain alcohol or drug abuse counseling as a part of their treatment plan for spousal abuse. By reducing the frequency and severity of the substance abuse, they are likely to reduce the risk of new episodes of violence. On the other hand, failing to maintain sobriety may increase the risk of new incidents of abuse.

Over the years, I have heard many of my clients tell stories like the one Francisco told at the beginning of this section. A man or woman will be making great progress in his or her counseling when, confident in their new skills and accomplishments, they get drunk or use drugs. Under the influence of drugs or alcohol, they seemed to forget everything they had learned in their sessions and abused again. In one intoxicated moment, they lose the trust that their partners and children have slowly gained in them – the trust that they had worked for months to regain by using their skills and staying in The Box.

Increased Risk

Advise clients that the following issues probably contribute to an increased risk of violence when they are under the influence:

Alcohol and drugs impair our judgment. Let’s face it, when we are under the influence, we lose a whole bunch of IQ points (we all do) and it’s easy to get stuck on “dumb.” For clients who have already demonstrated a history of poor judgment via their violence towards family members, further impairment of judgment through alcohol or drug intoxication seems a risky thing to do. I remind clients that the more frequently they drink or use drugs, the more likely it is that they will be under the influence when a crisis arises between them and their spouses. If a conflict arises between them while they are under the influence, they could be in trouble. They will not have the ability to think as clearly as they normally do, or to apply their skills as well as they ordinarily can. Many people in our program have said that they would never have done the things they did if they had been sober at the time. Because they were under the influence, they just did not think or care about the consequences of their behavior. (They cared a lot when they sobered up, sometimes in jail, but they did not care when they were drunk or high.)

Like an athlete who shows up for the game drunk, they were not up to the challenge. That is how it is when clients use drugs or alcohol when there is a lot of conflict and hostility in their relationships. I remind clients that they never know when “the game” is going to start. There is always the chance that the day you decide to have a snoot full will be “game day.” To illustrate the point, let us use Larry and Bob as examples. Larry does not drink as often as Bob and he never uses drugs. Suppose Larry has a few beers on Friday at a barbeque, but he does not drink the rest of the week. Also, suppose that we know for sure that a major conflict between Larry and his partner is going to come up sometime during the week. What are the odds that Larry will be under the influence when the conflict starts? The calendar below shows the days of the week. The “B” indicates Larry’s “Beer” day.

Larry’s Week:

Larry is drinking one day out of seven, so the odds that he will be drinking when a conflict comes up are 1/7 = 0.14, or about 14%. There’s a 14% chance that Larry will be under the influence when “the game” starts for him and his partner, and he’ll be called on to use all his skills to stay in The Box. (Yes, I know this is an over-simplification, but stick with me while I make my point.)

Bob is a different type of man than Larry. In fact, some of the people who know him best will tell you that Bob is a drunk. During the week in question, Bob drinks six days of the week. Suppose that Bob is also going to have a major problem come up between him and his partner during the week. His week looks like the calendar below, and the “B’s” stand for Bob’s “beer” days.

Bob’s Week:

What are the odds that Bob will be intoxicated on the day that the conflict comes up? The answer is 6/7 = 0.86, or 86%. The odds are 86% that Bob will be under the influence on “game day.” There is an 86% chance that Bob will be under the influence when he needs his skills the most. “Given what you have learned about the link between alcohol and violence,” I ask, “who do you think is more likely to have another incident of spousal abuse, Larry or Bob?” Their answer, of course, is Bob.

I used a sports analogy to make my point, but there is, of course, a big difference between our Bob and a professional athlete. If a baseball player shows up drunk to a game, his next appearance may be in the minor leagues. Spousal abuse has more severe consequences. If Bob shows up drunk at his game and abuses his partner again, his next appearance may be in criminal court, divorce court, the unemployment line, or in family court asking for supervised visitation with his children. If Bob is wise he will put the beer (or dope) down and get in the best rehabilitation program he can find. His family will thank him for it, and it may greatly reduce the likelihood of another incident of violence.

There are other ways that substance abuse increases the risk of violence. Alcohol and drug problems put severe stress on a relationship. Many times, the drinking or drug use is the problem causing tension between them. Substance abuse problems frequently strain financial resources, give rise to alcohol or drug-related legal problems, cause problems at work, impair physical health, and place stress on a relationship in ways that are too numerous to count. The increased stress of a drug or alcohol problem results in more conflict between the partners, and increases the risk of the conflict turning violent.

To return to Bob, his alcohol abuse may have been the problem about which he and his partner were fighting. Perhaps his wife objected to his spending more on Budwieser than bills, and tried to take his car keys to avoid another DUI. Perhaps she complained that Bob could more easily find his way to the liquor store than a job interview, and reminded him what his doctor said about his liver. Drug and alcohol abuse creates its own stress on a relationship.

As an example of the stress that substance abuse can create, consider John’s story. John, a former client, did not have a job and relied totally on his girlfriend for financial support. To be honest, John was not much of a worker. He was, however, an all-star drinker. One Sunday, John asked his girlfriend for money to buy a “40-ouncer.” She gave him the money and John took the short walk to the liquor store to buy his beer. A little later, John asked her for another “40-ouncer,” and she gave John more money. When John asked for a third bottle a couple of hours later, his girlfriend refused. She angrily told John that he had had enough, and besides, she had better things to spend her money on than beer. By this time, John was intoxicated and his behavior showed it. He demanded more beer money and belligerently grabbed her purse. In the ensuing struggle over her purse, John punched her. It is hard to see how spousal abuse counseling would have been helpful to John in the absence of an alcohol abuse component in his treatment plan. To his credit, John agreed to get alcohol abuse counseling in addition to spousal abuse counseling. By addressing both of these problems, John made good progress.

Does Substance Abuse Cause Partner Abuse?

Many researchers agree that there is a correlation between substance abuse and spousal abuse. In other words, people with substance abuse problems may have higher rates of partner violence than people who do not have substance abuse problems. While the abuse of drugs and alcohol may make violence more likely, it does not necessarily cause the violence. Correlations do not indicate causality. The distinction between correlation and causality becomes clinically important when clients assert, for example, that the alcohol made them abusive.” Personally, I am uncomfortable with a paradigm that attributes abusive behavior solely to alcohol or substance abuse. While the body of research may generally support a correlation between the two, the body of research is not supportive of a CAUSAL relationship between substance abuse and spousal violence.

In the study by Straus & Gelles (1990), for example, binge drinkers engaged in more violence than moderate drinkers did, and binge drinkers were three times more violent than non-drinkers were. Nevertheless, only about 20% of the binge drinkers engaged in any form of domestic violence during the year of the study. This means that 80% of binge drinkers did not engage in any form of violence against their partners. The chart also shows that 6.8% of people who were violent toward their partners do not drink at all. Clearly, alcohol did not cause the violence among couples who never use alcohol.

Substance abuse is an important contributing factor in many incidents of domestic violence, but I believe that the ways people think during spousal conflict – their belief systems about responsibility, aggression, and control – are still the most important factor in abusive behavior. A person who thinks like an abuser acts like one. It may be that the abuse of alcohol or drugs can facilitate this thought process, or that similar belief systems are involved with both substance abuse and spousal abuse. The research described earlier seems to suggest that a person is more likely to think and act like an abuser when he or she is intoxicated than when he or she is sober.

It is my clinical experience that clients who think (and subsequently behave) like an abuser while they are sober AND abuse alcohol or drugs are especially dangerous to their partners. This dangerous combination was supported in a 1990 study, which found that men who rarely drink but think it is OK to hit your partner had higher rates of spousal abuse than heavy drinkers who think it’s wrong to hit your partner (Kaufman, Kantor, & Straus, 1990). This finding suggests that thoughts and beliefs may be a more salient factor than substance abuse alone when it comes to partner violence. As one might intuitively predict, the highest rates of violence in the study were among heavy drinkers who ALSO believe it is OK to hit your partner.

To summarize, the body of research as of this writing generally supports the following assumptions about the relationship between substance abuse and spousal violence:

• The more one drinks, the greater the likelihood that he will be involved in a domestic violence incident against his or her partner. Studies report that heavy or binge drinkers appear to have a greater rate of assaulting their partners than people who do not drink. The same assumptions also apply to many forms of drug abuse.
• Alcohol and substance abuse alone do not appear to cause a person to hit his or her partner. Most heavy drinkers in the studies discussed did not hit their partners at all, despite their frequent drunkenness.
• Getting control of a drinking problem may do a lot to lower the risk of further violence, but it is no guarantee that the violence will stop. Many people who stop drinking, or who have never had a drinking problem, nevertheless abuse their partners. In the Straus and Gelles (1990) study, about 7% of the people who abstain from alcohol entirely had engaged in at least one episode of domestic violence against their spouse during the year of the study.

The best conclusion the practitioner can draw from knowledge gained from clinical experience and the body of literature may be this: if your client has a drug or alcohol problem, encourage him or her to get help, and formalize that goal as a component in your treatment plan. In so doing, you may greatly lower the odds of future spousal assaults. However, it is probably a mistake to assume that substance abuse counseling alone will stop abusive behavior. The client must also change destructive beliefs and attitudes, gain important skills, and accept full responsibility for his or her behavior towards the partner. Positive and meaningful changes are likely to come from addressing the drinking or drug problem, and by applying the concepts and skills learned in spousal abuse counseling.

I make the following recommendations to abusive clients. “First,” I advise them, “if you are having a lot of marital problems, I recommend that you stop drinking until things are on a more stable footing at home. Drinking will only compound your problems and increase the risk of violence during an argument. Second, if you have engaged in any abusive or violent behavior in the past while under the influence, you should stop drinking or using altogether. If stopping your drinking seems like too hard a thing to ask, you need to re-examine your priorities. Nothing should be more important to you than stopping the violence in your relationships. You should be willing to make any changes in yourself that will help attain that goal. If you are unwilling to make those changes, it is time to look at your level of commitment to a violence-free lifestyle. Now is the time to take whatever steps are necessary to get help.”

Don’s Marijuana Time-Out

In closing, let me warn you about clients who use alcohol or drugs to self-medicate, or “cope” with spousal conflict. Don, a member of my group several years ago, raised his hand during a session. “Dr. Adams,” he said, “I agree with everything you say about alcohol and other drugs, but you’re wrong about marijuana. Whenever my wife and I get into it, I go to the garage and smoke a joint. My anger goes right away, and no more problem. I’ve done this for years and it works great!” Don was describing a “marijuana time-out,” and he highly recommended it. Over the years, other clients have made similar comments about their drug (or drink) of choice. One client said cocaine reduced his anger, but alcohol increased it. Another claimed that wine was a good conflict-reducer, while tequila was deadly and should be avoided at all cost.

I asked Don, “If marijuana works so great, what are you doing in a counseling program for spousal abuse? Did you score bad weed or something?” Don blinked a couple of times and thought it over. I reminded Don of the concepts in The Box, how getting high never solves the problems that cause tension between partners, and unsolved problems lead to lingering tension that grows and festers. Over time, the average tension level rises. Eventually, tensions may explode in an episode of physical violence. “Drugs and alcohol can’t get you back to the OK Zone of The Box.” I continued. “You may not feel the tension when you’re stoned or inebriated, but it’s there, and it will be waiting for you when your sobriety returns. When you are high, you feel a drug-induced OK Zone, but things are not OK. You just don’t feel the tension because of the drug. Tensions are not gone, really. You are just using the marijuana to help you pretend that things are OK. Tension lingers and builds strength over time, and running away from your problems only makes things worse. The only effective way to deal with conflict is to solve the problems that cause it, and that requires knowledge, skill, and commitment. You can’t find that in a drug or a bottle, Don.”

Chapter 4: Choices Chains in the Attribution of Responsibility, and Defining the Concept of “Character” with Abusive Clients

The Rationale Behind Choices Chains

Some clients readily accept responsibility for their abusive behavior; others do not. Difficult clients have a hard time understanding how they go from “Point A” (the pre-conflict OK Zone) to “Point B” (out of The Box abusive behavior). Specifically, they find it hard to see the crucial importance of their own choices in the sequence of events that took place between Point A and Point B. Very often, they see themselves as victims of the abused partners, who “keep pushing me until I lose it.” They attribute their abusive conduct to provocative choices made by their partners, and either minimize or deny the importance of their own choices. “She is the one who needs the counseling,” they assert, “not me.”

The counselor should not minimize the problems that exist between the client and his or her partner; the problems and frustrations are often legitimate and reality-based. However, abusive clients must understand that the problems are not destroying their relationships. Rather, their own abusive responses – the aggressive choices they make in the heat of conflict – raze their relationships to the ground. Relational problems alone do not have the power to destroy homes. In contrast, the choice to abuse destroys lives, and abusive behavior is always a choice. After clients assume responsibility for their abusive choices, and the destruction their choices have inflicted on their relationships, meaningful change is possible. The challenge for the counselor is getting clients to attend to their destructive responses to relational problems, rather than to the problems themselves.

An important philosophical position lies at the heart of the client’s argument that his or her partner “drives him to abuse.” Are people wholly responsible for their choices? Is there a point, after sufficient provocation, when clients cease to be wholly responsible for their behavior, when their partners must assume some responsibility for our clients’ abusive behavior? How you answer these questions assumes great importance among this population of clients. How your clients answer this question is crucial. In this field of counseling, there is no single issue of greater importance.

I work with a wide variety of clients. There are times when I try to lessen the responsibility that some clients assume for the events in lives. There is the depressed client who feels excessive guilt, the victim of sexual assault who believes she somehow invited the rape, or the father who lost a daughter in an auto accident and blames himself for lending her the family car. In contrast, I hold abusive clients fully responsible for the choices they make. I ask them to assume full responsibility for their every choice, every time, without exception. “The only person responsible for the violence,” I tell them, “is the one doing the hitting.”

As discussed earlier in this course, clients typically attribute their abusive behavior to their emotional state (anger). They attribute their emotional state to their partners’ behaviors. The choices made by the client are conspicuously absent. Ask clients why they abused, and they will tell you why they were angry. Ask them why they were angry, and they will tell you what their partners said and did. They attribute their abusive conduct to their partners’ choices, rather then their own choices. Their paradigm suggests that the partners cause their abuse. To stop the abuse, you (the therapist) must help the client change their partners’ behavior. This is the basis of the client’s assertion, “She needs counseling more than I do.”

One way of responding to this assertion is to point out its impracticality. “When I started working in this field many years ago,” I say, “I explained to my clients that there are two ways to approach the problem of spousal abuse. The first approach is to try to get everyone to be nice to us. We can try to get everyone to treat us fairly, respectfully, and considerately. We can try to get everyone to express anger responsibly, never provoke us, and never give us a reason to abuse them. The problem with that approach is that it will take a long, long time. The second approach is to assume from the start that other people will sometimes say and do things that we do not like. Assume that people will sometimes disrespect us, hurt us, express anger childishly, provoke us, and do all manner of things that vex us. We can just accept the fact that people are not as good and responsible as we wish they were, and talk about how we will react to it. We can accept that we do not get to control how others act, nor choose the situation with which we have to deal, but take heart in the knowledge that we always choose our response to the situation. We can try to eliminate difficult and trying interpersonal situations from our lives, or learn to make wise and skillful choices in the face of such situations. The second approach seemed a lot more practical.”

Another response is to challenge the client’s notion that he or she is a victim. “Your life and your relationships are pretty much what you have chosen for yourself,” I often say. “Your choices are more important, as far as your own life is concerned, than anyone else’s choices. Victims lack choices. You make choices every hour of your life. Your life and relationships are the sum of all of the choices you have made, day by day and month by month, as the years went by. You chose your partner. You chose your strategy for handling problems. You chose your reaction to the choices of others. You chose your reaction to emotional upset and relational conflict. You chose to stay in the relationship or leave it. You chose to respond to conflict with love, support, and understanding, or with anger, insult, and aggression. You chose to assert leadership in the face of marital conflict or to think and behave like an angry child.

“Challenges of life and the choices of others certainly influence your life, but they do not define it. Nor do they have the power to define your relationships. Your choices, the way you choose to respond to challenges, are far more powerful in defining your life and your relations. If you do not like your life, make different choices. If you do not like your relationship, make better choices for yourself and your family. Your partner’s choices have never diminished your ability to choose not to abuse. As far as your life is concerned, your choices matter more than the choices of others. More than any other factor, your life today is what you chose it to be yesterday. More than anything else, your life tomorrow will be a reflection of the choices you make today.”

Newer clients hate it when I say this stuff. They feel irresponsible and guilty. Good – appropriate guilt has its place. More advanced clients love it when I talk this way. They feel stronger and more optimistic, and that is how I want them to feel. By taking responsibility for choosing their past, they open the door to choosing their future. They can choose better for themselves and their families, regardless of the challenges ahead. They can choose not to abuse.

“Choices chains” help clients identify poor choices from the past and identify better choices for the future. They help clients understand the true power of their own choices, and improve the choices they make in times of conflict. This treatment approach asks abusive clients to accept the following concepts:

• You are not a victim because you are able to make choices.
• Every day of your life, you face situations in which you have to make choices.
• You must take sole responsibility for the choices you make in these situations.
• Your choices are the most important factor in your life.
• If you abuse, it’s because you choose to abuse. If you don’t abuse, it’s because you choose to behave responsibly.
• Neither your partner’s choices nor your anger limit your freedom to choose, nor do they absolve you of your responsibility to choose wisely.
• Your choices are the single most important reason why your life (and your relationship) is what it is. In fact, your life at this moment is an accumulation of the thousands of choices you have made over the years. You chose your partner. You chose to stay in the relationship or leave it. When relationship problems came up, you chose to respond to them as you did. You chose to say and do certain things, and you chose to not say and do other things. Every choice you made along the way had a positive or negative effect on your relationship and your life.
• Now you have more choices to make. Having participated in counseling, you must choose to apply the concepts and skills you have learned, or choose to ignore them and abuse again.

Clients may say, “Wait a minute, Dr. Adams, what about my partner’s choices? What about all the hurtful things my partner does? Why do I always have to focus on my choices?”

“Human nature being as it is,” I reply, “it is easier to identify your partner’s poor choices than your own. But you can’t change your partner – you can only change yourself – and by changing yourself, you can often change your relationship. Change has to start somewhere and with someone. You might as well step up to the plate and take a leadership role by starting the change process in yourself. Further, it only takes one person to stop your abuse and your poor choices – you. It’s easier to ask your partner to change than for you to change. As I said, it’s easier to see your partner’s shortcomings than your own. Most people I work with can go on and on about their partners’ wicked behavior, but they find it harder to talk about the changes they need to make.

“If you examine past incidents of abuse openly and honestly, you will always find that, regardless of the behavior of your partner, there were choices that you could have made that would have led to a more positive outcome. Understand the choices you made that resulted in abuse, and identify the choices, which, had you made them, would have led to a more positive outcome for everyone. It is important to understand how your past choices led to abuse, and to identify better choices. With this understanding, it will be easier for you to make different choices the next time you are in a similar situation.”

Before going further with the chaining exercise, remind your clients of the pitfalls of blaming, minimizing, and denying. While they may be tempted to make themselves out as a powerless victims, they are neither powerless nor victims, and should not think of themselves in that way. At this stage of counseling, they have the power to choose a violence-free relationship. They have the power to choose not to abuse again in the future. They can choose to solve problems with their heads rather than with their hands, to communicate rather than shout, and to understand rather than demand. They can choose to remain calm, even when others are not. They can choose better for themselves and their partners, but only if they let go of their views of themselves as helpless victims. If they are to take control of their futures, there can be no room for blaming, minimizing, or denying.

Making Choices Chains

As discussed above, behavior chains help clients identify their poor choices, and identify opportunities to make constructive choices during relational conflict. Choices chains help clients focus on themselves and their choices, rather than on their partner and their partners’ choices. There is another way in which choices chains help clients. Frequently, their first attempts to apply the concepts and skills in this course do not turn out as well as they might have hoped. It is relatively easy to learn these concepts and skills, but it is more difficult to apply them in the heat of conflict. When clients fail to apply a concept or skill successfully, a choices chain can help evaluate what went wrong.

When a problem comes up between clients and their partners, the goal is to get from Point A (a state of Tension) to Point B (back to the OK Zone of The Box) as shown in the illustration below. Suppose they try to use the concepts and skills in this course such as recognizing warning signs, self-talk, problem solving, time-out, the Big Picture, avoiding blame and control, and so forth, but instead of getting from Point A to Point B, they wind up at Point C (out of The Box). What happened? Clients should ask themselves, “How did I get from Point A to Point C? I tried to stay in The Box and use my skills, but everything went wrong.” This is when choices chains help clients out. They show each of the choices made one-by-one. A thoughtfully prepared choices chain will tell clients what went wrong – how they got from Point A to Point C, instead of Pont A to Point B, and how to avoid making the same mistake the next time.

Choices chains show clients they ended up out of The Box one step at a time. Every choice brings a client closer to the goal (the OK Zone of The Box), or takes him further from it. Choices chains are like looking at footprints in the snow; they tell the steps the client took toward or away from the OK Zone.

The examples that follow illustrate how choices chains are used:

Louis, a former client, provides the first example. Louis was married, but he still liked to have fun with the guys, especially if the guys planed to go to a club. It is not too surprising that Louis’ wife had a problem with his club fun. As I recall, Louis worked a swing shift at his job, so his hours were irregular. On the night described in Louis’ choices chain, he got off work early and headed to a club with his cousin, where his fun lasted all night. Scheduled to work the morning shift at his job the following day, he did not make it home that night and headed back to work directly from the club. To Louis’ surprise, his wife was waiting for him at work in the morning. The tension between them was high and there was some verbal abuse between them. The problem was not resolved that morning, and the tension followed Louis home after work, where the problem came up again. Louis made a series of choices that eventually led to abuse, as he described below.

Notice that when Louis made his choices chain, he only wrote down his own choices. He kept the focus on himself rather than on his partner. This is an important part of a choices chain: Clients only write down the choices that they made. Clients cannot change their partners’ choices. They can only change their own. Keep the focus on the things that clients have control over – their own choices. After Louis described the choices he made, he wrote down the choices that he could have made that would have led him to a better outcome. In other words, he wrote down the choices that would have led him from Point A to Point

B (the OK Zone of The Box).

Any of Louis’ “Better Choices” would probably have prevented the violence that led to his arrest. When Louis started his counseling, he blamed his wife for the whole incident. After doing a choices chain, he understood the power of his own choices. He understood clearly that he had several chances to make choices that would have led to a different outcome. Unfortunately, he did not make those “Better” choices. He chose to abuse his wife, and by making that choice, he chose to get himself arrested that night. He had the power to choose better for himself and his partner, and he has only himself to blame that things turned out the way they did.

Holly, another client, wrote the choices chain below. Holly had been married for several years, and the first years of her marriage were good. Unfortunately, her husband started drinking heavily. Holly’s attempts to reason with him did not help, and one night he came home in the small hours of the morning, reeking of alcohol and very intoxicated. Holly met him at the door. Her choices chain tells the rest of the story.

Like Louis, Holly initially blamed her partner for the incident. As she completed her choices chain, however, she came to understand that she had been in control of her own destiny all along. If she had made any of the “Better Choices” available to her, there would have been no violence, and she would not have gone to jail that night.

Perhaps you sympathize with Holly. Certainly, everyone in her group understood the problem and Holly’s anger, and everyone agreed that Holly had to do something about her husband’s drinking problem. She could not just ignore it. However, Holly understood that her choice to deal with the problem by becoming verbally abusive and physically violent was a poor choice. In her own words, those choices did not accomplish anything and it only made things worse. It was her responsibility to stay in The Box and express her anger in a non-violent manner. She chose not to. The only thing her choices got her was a night in jail. Like Louis, she chose abuse and violence for her partner and for herself. Any of her “Better Choices” would have led to a very different outcome. To her credit, she took responsibility for her poor choices that day, as did Louis. Holly did not choose the situation she had to deal with, but she did choose the way she reacted to it. We all do. Even when faced with blatant wrongdoing from our partner, we have the choice to stay in The Box and act like a leader, or to leave The Box and behave abusively.

Richard, a divorcee who shared custody of his son, Brandon, with his ex-spouse Linda, provides the next example. Because of Richard’s past abusive behavior, the court issued a protective order that required him to stay away from Linda, but Richard sometimes ignored the order. Richard blamed Linda for their failed marriage, and objected to her new boyfriend. On the day in question, Richard picked up his son at school to take him to lunch. Richard knew that Linda worked at Brandon’s school and that he might see her there. That is, of course, just what occurred. As Richard was leaving the school with Brandon, he saw Linda. Richard’s refusal to comply with the protective order – and his controlling behavior towards Linda – are about to cause new problems for him. Look at his choices one-by one, as Richard later described them to his counseling group.

Richard’s first choice was to ignore the court order by going to Linda’s workplace. It was a poor choice. As Richard later acknowledged, he was angry with Linda and was looking for a chance to confront her. Picking up Brandon for lunch was an excuse to see Linda “by accident.” Had he chosen to abide by the protective order, he would have spared everyone the entire incident. Instead, he chose to ignore the order.

Richard still had time recover from his first choice. He could have chosen to avoid talking to Linda and simply gone to lunch with his son. Instead, he chose to violate the protective order by approaching Linda and bringing up an emotionally charged topic. Linda’s relationship with her boyfriend was none of Richard’s business, but he still wanted to control things.

If Richard believed that Linda was endangering Brandon by abusing drugs with her boyfriend, there are appropriate ways to address the problem (raise his concerns in family court, report them to the Department of Children and Family Services, etc.). His choice to confront Linda in public on the steps of a school building, at Linda’s workplace and in front of his son, and in a manner that violated a protective order was foolish and unhelpful. Richard’s belligerent attitude and claim that Linda was unfit to care for Brandon was provocative and sent the tension level sky high.

Nothing good happens when clients get out of The Box, and Richard was definitely out of The Box. He wanted to hurt Linda by verbally abusing her, and he selfishly ignored the effect of his behavior on his son, who had to witness his father’s humiliating tirade against his mother. Richard’s concerns about Linda’s behavior may or may not have been legitimate, but even if his concerns about her were entirely valid, they did not justify his choice to abuse her. The school authorities called the police, and they arrested Richard (for violating a protective order) in front of Brandon and the other people at the school. Any of Richard’s “Better Choices” would have led to a different outcome for himself, his son, and Linda.

When Richard started counseling, he was indignant about his arrest. He saw himself as a victim and railed against the police and the court system. Richard created a victim role for himself by limiting his attention to his first choice (I stopped at Brandon’s school to see him for lunch), and the result (she slapped me). As so many people do, he chose to narrow his attention to the last few seconds of the incident, and to ignore the choices that he made along the way. He refused to look at his own “footprints in the snow.” He found himself at Point C (slapped and arrested), did not like it there at all, and blamed others for it. Initially, he ignored his choice to use verbal hostility. I am not suggesting that Richard is responsible for Linda’s behavior. She made her own choices, as did Richard. I am suggesting that Richard’s assertion that he was an innocent victim in this situation was nonsense. He chose to go to Point C, step-by-step and choice-by-choice.

A choices chain forced Richard to stop thinking of himself as a helpless victim. As he worked on his choices chain, his footprints were unavoidable. They provided undeniable evidence that he had walked to Point C all by himself. He understood that, as far as his life went on that day, his own choices mattered more than Linda’s choices. In fact, his own choices mattered more than the choices of the police, the district attorney, or the court because any one of his Better Choices would have led to a very different outcome for him. Had he chosen to use one of his Better Choices, Linda would not have hit him, the police would not have been called, and he would not have faced jail and the ire of the judge. Richard eventually acknowledged that his own choices were more powerful than any other person’s choices in determining what happened to him on that day.

Choices chains are valuable because they show clients the power of their choices. “When you see yourself as a victim,” I advise my clients, “you are pretending that your own choices aren’t powerful. They are! All you have to do to show yourself how powerful your choices are is to complete a choices chain.” To their credit, Louis, Holly, and Richard were willing to look honestly at their choices and learn from their mistakes. Over the course of their counseling, each of them provided many examples of their ability to make Better Choices, and thereby choose a better life for themselves and the people who love them.

Discussing Character and Trust in the Closing Sessions

Maintaining an abuse-free relationship requires character, the strength of will to choose to do the right thing when you want to do the wrong thing, and behaving in a manner that fosters trust. In the closing sessions of counseling, I often relate the following children’s story as a way of explaining the task that lies ahead of every client. Over the years, I have been surprised at the powerful reaction of many clients to this simple story. Years ago when I was a boy, someone told me this tale about chickens and eagles. It is an old story, and I have heard several versions of it over the years. The details changed depending upon who was telling the story, but the moral of the story was always the same. Here is the story as I remember it:

There was once a beautiful and majestic eagle. The eagle built a nest in the top of the tallest tree on the highest mountain in the region. In the nest, she laid a single egg. A wise and noble mother, the eagle kept constant watch over her egg and protected it. She spread her wings by day to shade her egg from the heat of the sun, and she kept it close to her body at night to fend off the frosty air. She rarely slept or left the nest to hunt because she knew there were other creatures living on the mountain that would eat her egg if they got the chance.

One day a hunter saw her soaring high in the sky. He saw how beautiful she was and made up his mind to kill the eagle for her fine feathers; such feathers were much prized by the people in the valley below. He followed her to her nest, and when he found her in the tree, he shot her. The next day the egg shook and cracked, and a baby eagle was born. The young eagle called and called, but his mother did not come. Struggling to the edge of the nest to call for her again, he fell from the nest to the ground below.

This should have been the last of the baby eagle. By chance, however, a farmer looking for one of his sheep happened to wander by. When he got near the tree, he heard the young eagle calling for his mother. Looking first at the nest above, and then at a few feathers on the ground left by the hunter, the farmer guessed what had happened. “You’re alone now, young eagle, and your mother is no more,” said the farmer. “I’ll take you to my home where you’ll be safe.” The farmer put the infant eagle in his coat pocket. He carried the eagle to his farm in the valley below, and put the baby eagle in a pen with his chickens.

A couple of summers passed. One day, a man whom the people in the valley considered very wise happened to walk by the farmer’s house, and there he saw something remarkable. Among the farmer’s chickens was a beautiful eagle. The eagle pecked at the ground just like the chickens, and he walked and clucked just as the chickens did. Walking over to the eagle he asked, “Eagle, why are you here among the chickens?” “Sir, I don’t know what you mean,” replied the eagle, “this is my family.” “No,” said the wise man, “this is not your family. You are an eagle! You belong to the sky, not to the earth.” The wise man tried to teach the eagle, but the eagle did not understand. The eagle had never flown because no one had ever taught him to fly. He believed he was a chicken because he had always lived the life of a chicken.

The wise man thought for a long while. Then an idea came to him. He said, “Come with me and I’ll show you who you really are.” With that, the wise man picked up the eagle and put him on his shoulder. At first, it frightened the eagle greatly to be on the wise man’s shoulder as he had never been so high above the ground, but at the same time, he felt something familiar stir deep inside him. “Where are we going?” asked the eagle. “We’re going to the top of that mountain where the sun is setting,” answered the wise man. “Why?” asked the eagle. “You’ll see in time,” said the man. The eagle asked many more questions, but all the wise man said was, “You’ll see in time.”

The sun set as they reached the place where the mountain meets the valley, and all night they climbed toward the summit. The eagle could not remember ever being so far from the other chickens and the security of the farm. As they climbed he heard the voices of other animals, both the howl of the hunters and the cries of the hunted, and it all seemed strange but somehow familiar to him. On they walked through the night. The sky was just starting to lighten when the wise man stopped. “This is where you belong,” he said to the eagle.

The eagle was bewildered. The sky was getting lighter, but it was still too dark to see clearly. “I don’t understand,” said the eagle. “You will soon understand,” said the wise man, as they stood facing the growing light in the east. Slowly, the sun rose, casting a golden light in the face of the eagle. The morning wind rustled his feathers. The sun rose higher revealing a valley far below, and the eagle felt his heart race in his chest. “You are an eagle!” shouted the wise man. “Fly!” With that, he threw the eagle off the mountaintop! Terrified, the eagle tumbled over and over, falling to the valley below. The air rushed through his wings, and he fell faster and faster towards what seemed certain death on the valley floor. To his astonishment, something stirred in the eagle’s heart. He heard himself cry out, and the sound he made surprised him. It was not a cry of fear, but the screech of an eagle that the chickens heard in the valley below. The eagle spread his wings and he flew. He soared higher and higher in the morning sky. He understood. He was an eagle!

(I was about to write that the eagle swooped over the farm and ate the chickens, but that wouldn’t be appropriate.)

I ask clients to think of themselves as the eagle in the story. What sort of ending would they write for the eagle? They could write an ending that goes like this: The eagle no longer lived the life of a chicken. He saw himself as an eagle and grew the heart of an eagle. He soared high over the valley and became the noble creature he was meant to be.

Unfortunately, some people write a different ending for themselves: The eagle returned to the life of a chicken. Learning to fly was a lot of work, and his chicken friends thought all this flying and soaring was silly. They laughed at him, and told him to knock it off and act more like the other chickens. The eagle had thought and acted like a chicken for so long that he had grown a chicken’s heart. Soon, the eagle was back to pecking the dirt and clucking with his chicken friends, trying to forget his scary experience on the mountaintop.

“Do you see yourself as an eagle or a chicken?” I ask my clients. “I admit there are a lot more chickens than eagles in this world, and in some ways a chicken’s life is easier. Chickens do not take responsibility for their mistakes or try to figure out what is wrong. They just blame others for their problems. They do not take responsibility for their anger, and they are unwilling to learn or change. No one expects much from them; they are only chickens, after all. They just go on living their chicken lives.”

There are relatively few eagles among us. Eagles have the courage to acknowledge their weaknesses and the wisdom to correct them. They have the strength to become a respected leader, rather than a feared tyrant. Eagles have no fear of the criticism of chickens; an eagle’s commitment to growth is unshaken by the ridicule of the chickens around them. Courage, wisdom, strength, respect, fearlessness, commitment – that is what matters to an eagle. Most important of all, eagles have strength of character; chickens have none. The presence or absence of character is the easiest way to tell a chicken from an eagle. Eagles have it; chickens do not.

Character

“Character,” I explain, “means choosing to do the right thing long after the desire to do the right thing is gone. In other words, character is doing the right thing even when you are sorely tempted to do the wrong thing. It is easy to avoid abuse and violence when everything around you is the way you like it. Even chickens can do that. But when you’re really angry and those around you are treating you unfairly or disrespectfully, it’s hard to do the right thing, to be a leader, use your skills, and stay in The Box. Sometimes a partner may deliberately try to provoke you. Now is when you find out whether you are a chicken or an eagle. Do you have the strength of character to do the right thing? There have been people in my counseling program who talked like an eagle in their group. When the going at home was easy, they acted like an eagle. But when things at home got tough and they were really challenged, they returned to their old chicken behavior. They got out of The Box, ignored the skills and concepts they learned over months of counseling, and abused their partners again. It is easy to talk like an eagle. It is a lot harder to live like one. Living the life of an eagle takes real character.”

Let me tell you about Joe, a former client of mine. Joe had as much character as any person I have ever met. Before I met Joe, he had lived a chicken’s life. In fact, Joe was the head chicken in his neighborhood. Active in gangs since childhood, violence was all he had ever known. He was not just violent and abusive – Joe was a killer, and even the other gang members feared him. His life was a revolving door of crime, violence, and prison terms. As one would expect, Joe was also abusive to his wife and children. He was a chicken’s chicken.

Joe came to counseling as a condition of his parole after serving several years of a prison sentence. He was not a youngster any more. Joe was in his thirties, and he was tired of his chicken life. Joe talked about his wife and children in his sessions. He said he wanted to be part of their lives, and that he was determined to do whatever it took to be a good husband and a real father to his kids. Joe wanted to be an eagle. Privately, I doubted that he had the character to change, to live an eagle’s life. After all, like the eagle in the story, all Joe knew was the life of a chicken.

Joe surprised me. As the weeks and months went by, he participated constructively in his group and took his counseling very seriously. Joe took responsibility for his choices and set a positive example for others in the program. His crudely written homework assignments were almost illegible, but there was sound understanding and application of the concepts and skills that he was learning. I had to admit that Joe seemed to be transforming himself into an eagle, but the story he told us one week astonished everyone, including me. Joe related the following story in his group, which I have written as best as I recall it.

Joe’s Test of Character

“I took my family to see a movie that my kids wanted to see,” said Joe. “There were four or five teenage guys – “wannabe gangsters” – sitting a few rows behind us, and they were talking loudly, swearing, and cracking jokes during the previews. I tried to ignore them, but I felt myself getting mad. My wife and kids were really looking forward to seeing the movie, and I wanted them to have a good time. Besides, it cost a lot of money to see it. I used self-talk to calm down, but these guys kept talking. I felt my wife squeeze my hand. I think she knew I was getting mad and she was afraid what I might do. She didn’t want me to get in any trouble.”

“The movie started and these guys just got louder. I knew my kids couldn’t hear the movie. I think the other people there were afraid to say anything, so I stood up and told them to knock it off. I didn’t yell at them; I just told them to be quiet so my kids could hear the movie. They quieted down after that, but then they started throwing popcorn and stuff and some of it hit my kids. I saw my warning signs. Mainly, I started to think about ways to hurt these guys, and I knew I had to get myself out of there or I was going to get out of The Box. I had to think about what to do. I got my family up and we went to the very back of the theatre where we could be alone. That seemed to solve the problem and we watched the rest of the movie in peace.

“When the movie was over I told my wife and kids to stay in their seats until everyone left. I didn’t want any more trouble or to have another confrontation with those guys. But those guys didn’t leave with the other people. They waited until everyone left and then came up the stairs to where we were sitting. I thought, well, here we go. Part of me said a real man doesn’t take this shit! I’ve had enough. These punks asked for it and now I’m going to ‘f’ them up like I used to do. But another part of me said no, stay calm. Think of my wife and kids. They need me, and I want to be with them. These guys aren’t worth my time. (Joe meant the time he would have to do if he violated his parole by getting in a fight.) The guys came up to me and stood in front of my chair, and one of them threatened me by flashing gang signs. They did this right in front of my wife and kids! I wanted to kill them!”

This was a true test of Joe’s character. Part of him did not want to do the right thing anymore. His prior life as a chicken told him to go one way; his recent life as an eagle told him to go another. He had to choose to continue living like an eagle, or to return to the life of a chicken. Conflicting thoughts ran through his head.

When the going got tough, Joe spread his wings and flew. He stayed in The Box. He was an eagle, and he proved that he had the character to live an eagle’s life. He thought about this as he walked to the car with his family. He really had changed. In the past, he would have been walking to a police car while his wife and kids looked on. Now things were different. He had the skills and the character to choose a better life, both for himself and for his family. Joe’s group members were amazed that he had been able to keep his head in the face of such provocation, and they congratulated him. One of the newer group members said, “Hell, I wouldn’t have taken that shit. I would have kicked their ass then tried to get away!” Joe just looked him in the eye without saying a word. Some chickens will never understand why eagles want to fly.

Your Partner’s Trust

“Dr. Adams, I haven’t hit my wife in three months and she still doesn’t trust me! How long is this going to take?” The client who asked this question was obviously frustrated. He had abused his wife for years, but seemed to think that after three months of semi-responsible behavior he should get a prize or something. Clients must understand that regaining trust is not easy. It is easier to lose trust than to get it back. Once lost, trust returns slowly, if it returns at all.

“You lose trust,” I explain, “by getting out of The Box. Every ‘out of The Box’ incident erodes the trust that your partner has in you. How do you get trust back? Well, sometimes you can’t. If there have been a lot of out of The Box incidents, or if the incidents have been severe, your partner and children may never trust you again. Your partner may leave you. If that is what has happened to you, don’t blame them. That is the price for acting like a child. All you can do is take responsibility for your actions, and master the skills and concepts you learn so that you do not make the same mistakes in your next relationship. If you are still with your partner, getting back the trust you have lost should be foremost on your mind. The only way to get trust back is to stay in The Box and let the clock run.”

Words and promises are not enough to win trust. Words are cheap; promises are easy to make and easy to break. Only by choosing to stay in The Box will clients regain their partners’ trust. Someone once said, “What you do speaks so loud I can’t hear a word you’re saying.” Advise clients that they will have to prove themselves trustworthy repeatedly, and that winning trust back is a gradual process that takes time. For clients who want something more concrete, here’s a two-step process that’s almost guaranteed to get results:

Step One: Do something to show your partner that you are trustworthy.

Step Two: Now do it again a thousand times.

“You didn’t expect it to be easy, did you?” I ask. “If you start to doubt that getting back trust is worth the effort, pull out your Big Picture and read it. It should become clear that your efforts are worthwhile. Be warned, however, about the dangers of claiming to be an eagle and then returning to roost with the chickens. In other words, if you claim to have changed and then get out of The Box, trust will be harder than ever to win. Getting out of The Box, even if it is only once every hundred times you get angry, will generate mistrust. If you are going to win your family’s trust and maintain an abuse-free relationship, you have to commit yourself to staying in The Box from now on, and from now on means forever.”

Closing Comments

In this course, as in the first spousal abuse course, I have tried to provide the reader with the concepts and treatment strategies that have demonstrated their effectiveness in a clinical setting with the majority of clients the majority of the time. While time constraints do not allow for the discussion of everything worthy of discussion, the issues addressed here provide a solid foundation for clinicians faced with the problem of spousal abuse. In closing, I would like to speak to the widely held perception among mental health professionals that abusive clients are unresponsive to treatment. Many of my colleagues avoid such clients in the belief that they simply do not change.

A few days ago, for example, I met with Larry and Rachel. Larry started counseling several weeks ago to address his abusive behavior toward Rachel. Larry presented with an extensive history of explosive outbursts of anger that included episodes of verbal and physical assaults upon Rachel; the assaults were increasing in frequency and severity. Rachel’s history included treatment for bipolar disorder by her psychiatrist, psychiatric hospitalizations (largely due to medical non-compliance), impulsive and irresponsible behavior in a variety of areas, anger outbursts of her own, and substance abuse. Rachel’s substance abuse was a significant issue and source of conflict in the marriage; a medical professional, she had lost her employment due to abuse of prescription drugs.

Despite the daunting problems in their relationship, Larry and Rachel loved each other. Both adamantly declared their desire to stay together and work through their issues rather than separate. Rachel is currently receiving appropriate treatment for her issues. She actively participates in a substance abuse program, attends individual counseling, and cooperates with her psychiatrist to manage her medication. Larry participates in individual counseling and actively participates in a specialized group for spousal abuse. He expresses a firm commitment to do whatever he has to do in order to stop his abusive behavior.

Larry’s prognosis is very optimistic. Over the weeks, all physical abuse has stopped. He still gets out of The Box and verbally abuses Rachel, although the frequency and intensity of these incidents are declining. Larry acknowledges the incidents, and more importantly, assumes full responsibility for them. He makes no effort to blame Rachel for his abusive conduct. Larry learns from his mistakes, and demonstrates increasing skill in evaluating his behavior to identify areas that need correction. Though sometimes discouraged, he continues to participate constructively in his individual and group sessions. In short, Larry is exactly where I would expect him to be at this stage of counseling. He is increasingly knowledgeable, but he is not yet proficient. He is making his first fumbling attempts to apply the skills and concepts that he will eventually master and rely upon for the rest of his life. Larry is following the learning curve that I have seen thousands of others follow over the years.

Recently, Rachel asked to see me privately. Tearful and distraught as she spoke, Rachel said her psychiatrist had advised her to get out of her marriage now. “It is only a matter of time,” he told her, before Larry hits her again. The counselors at her substance abuse program also encouraged her to divorce her husband, and suggested that her sobriety depended on it. She had to choose, they suggested, between sobriety and her marriage. Through some mystic clairvoyance that I have never been party to, her counselors were unanimous in their opinion that Rachel’s goal of an abuse-free relationship with her husband is idealistic and hopeless. “Wake up and smell the roses,” they implied. Abusive behavior is not amenable to treatment. Your hope is ill founded. Larry will never change. Give up. It is only a matter of time. Get out now.

Unfortunately, there is more asserted about spousal abuse than has ever been demonstrated. Myths abound. There exists a pervasive notion in our profession that abusive conduct is unresponsive to any form of intervention – that abusive clients are different from other people. The prognosis for abusive men and women is not guarded; it is decidedly pessimistic. As a clinician who has worked in this field for many years, I am not surprised when abusive clients stop abusing. To the contrary, I am surprised when they do not stop abusing. Given a treatment protocol that provides clients with sound concepts and needed skills, I assure you that reasonably motivated people can and do stop abusing.

This is not to say that treatment is successful for every abusive client. Some people simply refuse to change, and they will make their position abundantly clear in the first six weeks of counseling. Among such clients, out of The Box incidents will continue unabated, and when discussing them they doggedly insist upon critiquing their partners’ mistakes rather than their own. They deny responsibility for their choices, and flash with anger at the counselor’s suggestion that they alone are responsible for their abusive conduct. They understand the concepts behind the strategy; they just decline to apply them. It is my experience, however, that such clients are the exception rather than the rule. A modicum of motivation warrants optimism.

Most clients follow a relatively predictable course in treatment. I have found, for example, that physical violence typically stops long before verbal abuse. The typical course of treatment is six to twelve months. Six months into treatment, the majority of clients have achieved important objectives. New incidents of physical assault are unlikely. Incidents of verbal abuse are few, and when they do occur, they are of less intensity and of shorter duration. The client acknowledges these setbacks when they occur, and shows genuine remorse. They are usually surprised by their conduct and disappointed in themselves; they thought they were beyond such outbursts. They assume responsibility for their behavior, and they demonstrate increasing competence in evaluating the incidents and taking corrective action quickly and efficiently. The process is slow, arduous, and time-consuming. Set-backs are common, but the goal is worthy of the effort.

David is a client approximately six months into his counseling program. His grandmother is terminally ill, and he spends a lot of time comforting her in the hospital. Recently, he stayed with his grandmother until the early hours of the morning. Upon leaving the hospital, he felt depressed and lonely, and although it was late, he drove to his girlfriend’s apartment to talk. Arriving at her apartment, David heard sounds of a party inside. Looking through her window, David saw his girlfriend and several other people in various stages of undress. He watched as they took turns doing lines of cocaine on the coffee table.

“I was pissed,” he said. “I wanted to bust the door in and beat the hell out of everybody.” Beating the hell out of everybody was more than idle thought; David is a professional boxer. “Then I thought about The Box,” he continued, “and how nothing good ever happens when I get out of The Box. I just got back in my car and drove home.” David made a choice consistent with his goal of a non-violent lifestyle (at least as far as his personal relationships are concerned). Consistently choosing to stay in The Box will allow him to maintain it, as so many have done in the past.

And what of Larry and Rachel? Their future is still undecided. Will events prove Rachel’s counselors right, or will they justify her hope for an abuse-free life with Larry? I don’t have a crystal ball, but if I were a betting man, I would place my money on Larry and Rachel’s marriage. Knowing them as I do, I think the odds are on their side.

Contacting Dr. William E. Adams:

I am happy to respond to questions or comments about the treatment strategies presented in this course. You may contact me here. You may purchase my treatment manual by clicking on The Choices Program: How to Stop Hurting the People Who Love You.

References and Suggested Reading

Adams, W. E. (2003). The Choices Program: How to Stop Hurting the People Who Love You. W. E. Adams, copyright 2003. (Ordering information available on this website.)

Adamson, J. L., & Thompson, R. A. (1998). Coping with interparental verbal conflict by children exposed to spouse abuse and children from non-violent homes. Journal of Family Violence, 13, 213-232.

Brookoff, D. (1997). Drugs, alcohol, and domestic violence in Memphis. National Institute of Justice Research Preview. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Buzawa, E. S., & Buzawa, C. G. (2003). Domestic violence: The criminal justice response (3^rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Carlson, B. E. (1984). Children’s observations of interpersonal violence. In A. Roberts (Ed.), Battered women and their families: Intervention strategies and treatment programs. New York: Springer.

Giles-Sims, J. (1985). Wife battering: A systems theory approach. New York: Guilford.

Greenfeld, L. A., Rand, M. R., Craven, D., Flaus, P. A., Perkins, C. A., Ringel, C., Warhol, G., Matson, C., & Fox, J. (1998). Violence by intimates: Analysis of data on crimes by current or former spouses, boyfriends and girlfriends (NCJ-167237). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Jacobson, N. S. & Gottman, J. M. (1998). When men batter women: New insights into ending abusive relationships. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Kadushin, A. & Martin, J. A. (1981). Child abuse: An interactive event. New York: Columbia University Press.

Kalmuss, D. (1984). The intergenerational transmission of marital aggression. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 11-19.

Kaufman Kantor, G. K. & Straus, M. A. (1990). Response of victims and the police to assaults on wives. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk Factors and adaptations in 8,145 families (pp. 473-486). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Kosky, R. (1983). Childhood suicidal behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 24, 457-468.

Roberts, A. R. (1987). Psychosocial characteristics of batterers: A study of 234 men charged with domestic violence offenses. Journal of Family Violence, 2, 81-93.

Roberts, A. R. (1988). Substance abuse among men who batter their mates. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 5, 83-87.

Spaccarelli, S., Coatworth, J. D., & Bowden, B. S. (1995). Exposure to serious family violence among incarcerated boys: Its association with violent offending and potential mediating variables. Violence and Victims, 10, 163-182.

Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Straus, M. A. (1980). Wife beating: How common and why. In M. A. Straus & G. T. Hotaling (Eds.), Social causes of husband wife violence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. Garden City, NY: Anchor.

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Willson, P., McFarlane, J., Malecha, A., Watson, K., Lemmey, D., Schultz, P., Gist, J., & Fredland, N. (2000). Severity of violence against women by intimate partners and associated use of alcohol and/or illicit drugs by the perpetrator. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 996-1008.

Take the test