the philosophy of love and relationship counselling

7/29/2019 The philosophy of love and relationship counselling

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-philosophy-of-love-and-relationship-counselling 1/24

Soiree February 2009

The philosophy of love and relationship

counselling



The philosophy of love and relationship counselling

Centacare Soiree February 2009

Introduction.

Love.

Velleman.

Problems with Velleman.

Bestowal.

Love and virtue.

Martin.

Comparisons.

Relationship.

Dependencies of love

Understanding.

Compassion

Perception.

Kindness of interpretation.

Best qualities

Best motives

o Confirmation

Best preferences

Strategy and creativity.

Values and compassion and seeing the best.

Conclusion.





Introduction

The meaning of love is to be found in our propensity to create ideals that liberate us from reality while manifesting our adherence to it.

(Irving Singer 369)

I keep in mind the remarks of a food critic in The Age, in reviewing a book entitled Pizza: A Global

History : “When it comes to writing about the history of food, solid research is not enough. Readers

need to be stimulated with appetising words.”1

I hope I can ensure that a philosophical discussion of

love retains some passion.2

In 19613, Iris Murdoch argued that it was time analytic philosophy, at that time locked in linguistic

dryness, embraced such categories central to human experience such as the good and our

understanding of love.

In this talk I want to describe some contemporary philosophical4

views of love and discuss how they

might relate to and even illuminate some of the interventions we make in couple therapy. The two

contemporary philosophersI shall refer to in detail are David Velleman of New York University and

Mike Martin of Chapman University in California.

In particular, I want to pose the question as to the link between love and perception, and the link

between perception and action.

I shall refer to case examples as much as possible and look at what specific things we might say tocouples based on these philosophical views.

…

1Andrew Stephens, 10/1/09.

2Diane Ackerman, A Natural History of Love: "Love feeds a million watch fires in the encampment of the

body." (p.33.)3

In her essay “Against Dryness” in her collected essays entitled Existentialists and Metaphysics (EM).4Philosophy: “Something to think about in the unemployment line.”





Love

The experience of love is a not always expressed background to couple counselling. Sometimes it

will emerge easily as the couple clings together, sometimes it emerges at the end of a conflicted

session almost as an afterthought, sometimes it must be adduced or even hoped for. The counsellor

at times will be more convinced of its existence than the couple. Many times it is clouded over by

unmanaged disagreement, and more than occasionally it is lost.

I do need to deal right away with one possible objection to my topic, namely that love, while

interesting, lacks practical relevance for relationship counsellors. As we know from our own

experience, let alone our client work,it is not quite true that “love is all we need”.

We are all aware of couples who will say that of course they love each other, but they could never

live together.

Indeed, we might argue that it is not love that we want when relationships go off track, but the skills

to make love work.

But perhaps there is a more intimate link between love and skill that this remark suggests, or so I

shall argue below.

It is more than that love and skill are a divergent couple, where both parties need recognition and

understanding of the other. Perhaps our very understanding of love implies practice. In particular,

the virtues based approach I shall discuss below is based on the practice of valuable qualities.

Aristotle would have some difficulty accepting that virtues were not qualities of practice. In

relationships, we need “loveskill’.5

Love challenges us not just in the areas of skill, it is broader than this: but also in self growth and

maturity.

5Those who are committed to more solution focused approaches, however, will find that I focus more on

cognitions and perception.





…

If we talk of three aspects of love, falling in love, being in love and staying in love6, then it is this last

category we as relationship counsellors are interested in.

Of course the ennamorata, to use the evocative Italian term for the phase of falling in love, is of interest. In our society and in our culture at this time, falling in love is the accepted path to longterm

relationship. This has not always been the case.

Stephanie Coontz points out that for thousands of years no one believed that people should marry

for love, rather marriage wasn’t about the happiness of two individuals – it was a political and

economic arrangement between two families:

George Bernard Shaw described marriage as an institution that brings together two people

"under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of

passions. They are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and

exhausting condition continuously until death do them part."1

Shaw's comment was amusing when he wrote it at the beginning of the twentieth century, and

it still makes us smile today, because it pokes fun at the unrealistic expectations that spring

from a dearly held cultural idealâ€”that marriage should be based on intense, profound love

and a couple should maintain their ardor until death do them part. But for thousands of years

the joke would have fallen flat.

For most of history it was inconceivable that people would choose their mates on the basis of

something as fragile and irrational as love and then focus all their sexual, intimate, and

altruistic desires on the resulting marriage. In fact, many historians, sociologists, and

anthropologists used to think romantic love was a recent Western invention. This is not true.

People have always fallen in love, and throughout the ages many couples have loved each

other deeply.2

But only rarely in history has love been seen as the main reason for getting married. When

someone did advocate such a strange belief, it was no laughing matter. Instead, it was

considered a serious threat to social order.

It is perhaps best to see the ennamorata is an invitation to a relationship.

We may welcome the choices we now have in choosing a partner for reasons of love, love changes,

matures even, and how it might be maintained and evolve into something more permanent

becomes of importance. Indeed, this is the (sometimes illusory)dream of many.

…

What can happen in relationships, as we well know, is a gradual decline into disrespect.7In particular,

the increasing development of mutual cycles of criticism, often arising from the difficulty of

6

Irving Singer LME p.386. “What I call staying in love involves a cherishing of the joint experience which isone’s life with another person as well as cherishing of the particular person who has lived through it with us. It

maintains a basic loyalty to that person as he or she happens to be, warts and all.”





managing difference, can change the partner’s perceptions of each other, and love and perception

closely intertwined.

The negative interactional cycle, repetitive criticism, typically leads to distrust and suspicion of

motives. To counter this, we try to return to a more loving perception of each other, as will be

discussed below.

This is love’s decrease, what is it’s increase. This not merely of academic interest. Perhaps to

understand both its formation and its loss, we need to understand first it’s nature

…

Let me move on to discussing the two contemporary views of love I will focus on this evening:

David Velleman’s view of love as an appreciative response to an arresting perception of

another’s value, and

Mike Martin’s view of love as constituted by the relationship virtues (or valuable relationship

qualities) it embodies.

So, we will have a view of love based on respect for persons and a view of love that emphasises the

practiceof care.

…

David Velleman

Let me consider first the views of David Velleman. It should be noted that Velleman attempts to give

an account of love in general, that includes but is not confined to adult enduring love.

Velleman also suggests that we fall into error if we see love as identified with the desires or

preferences that tend to go along with it. “I venture to suggest that love is essentially an attitude

towards the beloved himself but not toward any result at all.” (LME 354) In other words, while love

might involve virtuous actions such as caring and generosity, these are a consequence of love and

not part of its constitution, they are “independent responses that lovemerely unleashes”.8

Velleman argues that love has two intertwined elements. An appreciation of another person’svalue, together with a consequent disarming of our natural defences. Let us look at these two

elements in turn.

Element one: theappreciative response to the perception of another’s value

7 Singer, op.cit. “Love ceases to exist only when our attitude turns into a more total hostility, disdain, or

indifference, when we cannot live with another person in any fruitful manner.” (397) Tom Robbins' question

and answer: “Why won't love stay? All too often, lover and beloved spend time together and find out about

each other.“

88LME p.361. Responses such as sympathy, empathy, fascination and attraction resulting in benevolence (a

favorable response).





Velleman writes that:

“… the people we love are the ones whom we succeed in perceiving as persons, within some of the

human organisms milling about us. Only sometimes in this throng so we vividly see a face or hear avoice or feel a touch as animated by the inner presence of a self-aware, autonomous other – a

person who is a self to himself, like us.”9

He continues:

“A sense of the wonder at the vividly perceived reality of another person is, in my view, the essence

of love.”10

Our attitude is not just one of wonder, in Velleman’s view is is permeated by our valuing the other:

“I am inclined to say that love is… the awareness of a value inhering in its object; and I am inclined todescribe love as an arresting awareness of that value.” (LME 360)

And more:

“In my view , appreciation for someone’s value as a person is not incidental to loving him: it is the

evaluative core of love. …Love is an appreciative response to the perception of that value.” (BP 11)

The first element in Velleman’s account of love is his belief that it involves a recognition of the other

persons personhood. For some persons that we meet this strikes us with force. As we move

through the world some persons just strike us and engage us. An appreciative response to the value

of this person is on his view the essence of love.

…

Jeanette Kennett, from Monash University, has some difficulty with Velleman’s emphasis at times on

the “rational will” as what we respond to in another person.

In a moving account of her son and his struggles over the years with malancholy, she points out that

her sense of her son’s value does not rely on an appreciation of his ability to reason (rational

will).Rather, he reveales himself as a valuer, as responding to the beauties and mysteries of life.

“I have argued that the value of persons resides in a significant part in their capacity to value.” 11

Velleman relies on the Kantian notion that values stem from the rational Kantian will, but he

attempts to humanise his position, and in doing so moves closer to Kennett’s position .

“I find it plausible to say that what we respond to, in loving people, is their capacity to love; it’s just

another way of saying that what our hearts respond to in another heart.”12

It is this “other heart”

that has the capacity to appreciate and value.

9

Beyond Price (BP) p.1110BP p.11.

11TPSp.223.





Velleman has various suggestive phrases which do not seem to be part of his main argument but

which help illuminate his meaning or frame of reference. They are closer to Kennett’s criticisms.

“Vividly seeing the personhood of another, we see a potential partner in mutual emotional

disarmament. Just as the conscience responds to others conceived as having consciences, so the

heart responds to another seen as having a heart.”13

This introduced the idea of emotional disarmament, to which we now turn.

…

Element two :disarming of our natural defences

The second element is that this recognition breaks down our natural defences and makes us

vulnerable to the other.

“I suggest that it arrests our tendencies toward emotional self-protection from another person… itmakes us vulnerable to the other.” (361)

“Whereas respect arrests our self -interested designs on a person, love arrests our emotional

defences against him, leaving us emotionally vulnerable to him. In colloquial terms, loving someone

lays our hearts open to him, leaving us emotionally disarmed and susceptible to all manner of other

emotions toward him.”14

Now there is no doubt that recognition of the self of the other and a vulnerability to the

personhood of another is an important element of love, especially in the stage of falling in love. It

has some difficulty I believe in giving an account of enduring love.

…

Some problems in Velleman’s account.

I find Velleman’s account to be unsatisfactory in one fundamental respect. To me is too passive an

account of enduring love.

Love is dynamic in at least three ways:

It is a choice

It is an ongoing activity or creation

It is a bestowal

12LME p.365.

13BP p.15. This explains the natural connection between love and forgiveness. Indeed Velleman sometimes

extends his position even further: “I find it plausible that we love people for their true and better selves.’ (good

will) (365) There is little attraction in the prospect of being cathected by another’s libido: but having another

heart opened to us by a recognition of out true selves – well that seems worth wanting.” (363)

This view captures something of the idea that there is a “longing that others will delight in us just because of

who we are.” (Armstrong 49)Indeed Martin agrees that in love, we love a person not just for their valuable

qualities: “Deep caring implies love for persons, not just for some of their qualities.”

13

14BP p.13.





Firstly: Choice and commitment.

The American philosopher Harry Frankfurt develops a view of love as “robust concern. He writes

that: ”At the heart of the robust concern view is the idea that love:“…is neither affective nor

cognitive. It is volitional.”(Frankfurt 1999, p. 129

He continues: “Love is more than a feeling, it is an activity—a long series of decisions and actions.”

This reflects the view that we create (or diminish) love moment by moment by our actions and

interactions.

Secondly: It is an activity, a giving

In contrast to the idea that love is an emotion that happens to us is the view that: “A commitment to

love is a commitment to sustain an attitude of valuing the beloved as singularly important in one’s

life.”15

Thus, despite his wife’s pleading, the husband may not talk, but is doing everything but: giving love

in his own way. This willingness to give may be more important than we might at first think. In

discussing caring, Nel Noddings points to the importance of disposability in our notion of what is

caring. Recognising that one has a self to give, one has the “readiness to bestow and spend oneself

and make oneself available.”16

“Disposability” here, means the ability “to put oneself out” for the

sake of the other.

To continue to give requires faith, and often courage. And yet, as with life itself, love “shrinks or

expands in proportion to one’s courage.”

Noddings refers to bestowing oneself, let us look at the origins of this notion.

…

Bestowal

In his opusThe Nature of LoveIrving Singer develops a view love as way of valuing another person, a

view which influence Mike Martin, and which we shall shortly consider in much more detail.

Singer emphasises the active nature of love by his notion of bestowal.

In loving another person, Singer argues, we actively bestow value on them as well as on the

relationship itself. “To love another person is to create a relationship in which that person takes on

a new and sometimes irreplaceable value.”17

It is important here to distinguish bestowal from appraisal .

15

Martin LV p.57.16C, p.19.

17TNL p.390.





If we see relationships in terms of personal satisfaction (what the relationship can do to our

advantage), we might be focused purely on individual appraisal, namely the question how this

person might satisfy ones own needs or desires. In this sense: “...in appraising another person, we

assess his or her utility for the satisfaction of needs, desires, appetites, impulses, instinctual drives

that effect is in every moment of our lives.”18

We can appraise either in terms of not fully conscious social (“objective”) or personal standards

(“individual”) of what is of value.

However, bestowal in love is different to appraisal. “When we love we create value… The lover

accepts the beloved, responds affirmatively to her attributes even though he knows that from an

appraisive point of view they could be evaluated in a less positive way.”19

Bestowal creates value, “it gives another person a special goodness, a personal worth that emanates

from our own capacity to love…”20

The practical implications are that we can “perceive the way in which lovers sustain the being of one

another, undeterred by failures in themselves, refusing to withdraw affection or concern because of

them.”21

It is distinctive of mature love that it is held despite failings in oneself and in the other.

…

Love and virtue

An approach that goes beyond awareness of value are approaches that link love to virtue..

Virtue.

Virtues are desirable ways of relating to other persons, writes Martin, “They are patterns of

character that correspond to ideals about the kinds of persons we aspire to be and the kinds of

relationships we find desirable.”22

They are personal qualities that allow our lives to flourish and also to have meaning.

They are linked to our notions of what is good and valuable and meaningful.

In this series we have already looked at some key relationship virtues: commitment and forgiveness.

Other key relationship qualities include care, courage, fairness.

18TNL p.390.

19TNL p.392-3.

20 There is a link here to Velleman’s notion that love is “beyond price”, that love refuses to make comparisons,

but: “We treasure the object of our love as special, not by comparing him favourably with alternative love

objects, but rather by focusing appreciative attention solely on him…” BP, p.12.

21TBL p.394.

22Martin, LV p.3.





Aristotle used the term “virtue” in a much broader sense than we are used to today. The original

word is arête, which has more accurately the meaning of an excellence that is appropriate to a

human life.

The highest virtue was held to be eudaimonia, often translated as “happiness” but again more

accurately translated as that which allows a person to “flourish” or grow. Thus our own happiness is

linked to the practice of virtues in life.

Martin writes: “Love transcends the dichotomy between eros and agape by creating motives to

promote the shared good of two (or more) people.” (39)

Love in fact provides a chance for self growth, in developing the personal capacity to hold to what is

of value.

…

Mike Martin

This brings me to look at the views of Mike Martin in more detail, whose view of love stems from an

account of the good in terms of virtue.

This Is an account of erotic love, based on long-term commitments to love one’s partner (staying in

love), unlike Velleman which has a wider scope.

Martin suggests that:

“Love is a way to value persons morally, and to be valued in return. More accurately, love

encompasses a wide variety of virtue structured ways in which persons value each other as having

irreplaceable worth.”23

Indeed, in this view love is constituted by the constellation of values it encompasses: such as caring,

forgiveness, fairness, courage and gratitude.

Pluralism.

This account of love allows for pluralism, a wide diversity of ways in which loving qualities are put

into practice, indeed fits in to one of the great consolations of counselling in discovering love in

unlikely places. Thus love is quite frequently “morally rich and creative”24

, “so there are as many

kinds of love as there are hearts.”25

Not unrealistic.

23

LV p.1.24LV p.2.

25Martin quotes A.N. Wilson, LV p.4.





In rejoinder to the view that this is an idealistic or naive view of love, Marin says it is important to

note that in this form, the view Is pragmatic rather than idealistic. It is of the nature of virtues that

they are practical, practised.

Love combines aspiration with earthiness. Recall Singers statement.26

This account does not suppose that relationships have to be ideal, but; “To the extent these virtues

are present, their love is present, vibrantly alive.”

Balance.

One particular virtue, such as caring, needs to be balanced against the other virtues, such as fairness.

His last point is particularly important. One reason why we might suppose that “love is not enough”

is that giving need to be balanced with fairness and self respect.

Comparisons and similarities in these accounts.

Murdoch believed that love and the good were closely related, in that our experience love was an

important part of the formation of our views of the good.27

This is a view that incidentally both

Velleman and Martin share.We may recall Martin saying that: “Love not only interweaves altruism

and self interest; it fuses them. Love transcends the dichotomy between eros and agape by creating

motives to promote the shared good of two (or more) people.”28

The experience of love can be part of the development of ethical judgment.29

However, while both Velleman and Martin agree that love is a moral emotion, Martin gives greater

weight to the activities that nurture, and in his view comprise, “true” or ongoing love, while

Velleman sees these benevolent activities are “independent processes that love merely unleashes.”

(LME 361)The fact that love is oftlinn ked to hate, suggests to Velleman that linking love and caring is

“sentimental fantasy.” (360)

While Velleman has a point, in that love takes many complex forms, I would suggest that we would

hardly describe a relationship without caring as a form of love.30

And caring is embedded in many

other relationship virtues.

Martin writes that: “To the extent that these virtues are present, their love is present, vibrantly alive;

as these virtues recede, their love shrivels. The love shrivels not as a causal aftermath of the virtue’s

absence, but as part of the meaning of the relationship defined by those virtues. This is obvious with

26 “The meaning of love is to be found in our propensity to create ideals that liberate us from reality while

manifesting our adherence to it.” (Irving Singer 369)27

Rather than being in conflict.28

LV p.39.2929

E.G. Carol Gilligan.30 Singer p.375. “For the erotic relationship to be called love it must include elements of caring and cherishing,

whether or not it is also possessive and jealous at times.”





regard to caring. Without deep caring the relationship might involve pleasant coexistence but not

love. But in addition, the caring is embodied in many of the other virtues… These virtues structure

and define what their love is, how they value each other, and how they value their relationship.”31

Love is I fact an aact of faith and rust, an “erotic faith”32

: “Mutual caring, faithfulness, sexual fidelity,

and courage all imply a shared willingness to trust, which implies faith in each other.”33

…

Relationship counselling

If Martin is right in supposing thatlove is constituted by virtues such as caring, forgiveness, fairness

and gratitude, thenhow might this understanding illuminate what we do in relationship counselling.

We do not need a new paradigm for relationship counselling, heaven forbid, for we already have a

multitude of approaches.

But a value base approach may help us to be clear what are the core elements in different

approaches to relationship counselling. Perhaps these core elements or common factors are skilful

values.

If love is constituted by virtues such as caring, forgiveness, fairness and gratitude, one implication is

the suggestion that our task in relationship counselling is to cultivate or activate these valuable

relationship qualities.

There is a potential similarity here with relationship education, but of course in relationship

counselling the focus is on process.

…

Dependencies of love.

As a first step in looking at how we might cultivate virtues in relationships, let us look first at the idea

that love has “dependencies”, qualities it relies upon for its growth.34

John Armstrong’s Conditions of Love is an intelligent, sensitive, practical and somewhat neglected

work. Towards the end ofthis book, Armstrong talks of love as an achievement, thus already

emphasising activity.35 But this achievement of love:

“…is dependent upon many other achievements: kindness of interpretation, sympathy,

understanding, a sense of one’s own needs and vulnerability.” (CL 158)

This is a very interesting list.36

But I want to focus these aspects here:

31LV p.20-21.

32 This is Martin’s term.

33LV p.5.

34

Jeanette Kennett: :”The empirical literature focuses on sympathy or empathy as cititical to developing moralawareness.” (TPS p.218.) 35

“Compatibility, on this view, is an achievement of love, not a precondition of love”. Armstrong CL p.36.





Understanding

Sympathy

Kindness of interpretation

…

Understanding37

“Descriptions are representative but rarely neutral: they are rich modes of envisioning reality.” (Carla Bagnoli)

When Haley wrote that: ”…there is little evidence that achieving understanding causes a change in

the marital relationship”38

, perhaps what he had in mind was some intellectual (denotative) grasp of

causes or systems.

In fact understanding (in the sense discussed below) is the essential backdrop against which other

strategic moves are made. It is the pre-requisite and first step in couple work.

Confusion can arise however as the term has many different meanings.

Different meanings

The term “understanding” :

36 For instance, Armstrong’s reference to vulnerability mirrors to some degree Velleman’s focus on disarming

defences36

. We are all aware of the ability of love to humble.

37

I’m not sure if understanding is a pre-condition of love or partly constitutes love itself.

38SP p.150.





Has a very general meaning in terms of comprehending or giving meaning to.

It also has a more specific meaning in terms of its adjectival use in “an understanding

friend”, characterized by understanding based on comprehension and discernment and

empathy.

Armstrong reflects this duality to some degree by referring to both “understanding” and

“sympathy.”

Let us look at these two different senses.

Firstly: understanding as giving meaning to.

We give meaning to action not just by uncovering motives, but also by looking at the meaning of

that person’s life.39

One way of putting this is to ask what they care about.

Our interest (curiosity) extends to the sort of person they are, their qualities, how they came to be

this person, what has effected them in life, their key challenges, their dreams and goals.

We are fundamentally looking for another kind of understanding again, though related to the above

uses. Rather, we are talking of a positive appreciation of uniqueness.

But I would like to focus here on the second core notion of understanding:

Secondly, understanding as compassion.

The ennamorata has the power to bring together persons of very different character and interests,

often connecting initially through the telling of their stories to each other. This capacity to connect

with the other’s story can get lost in love’s decrease.

The rediscovery or recovery of understanding (related to empathy and sympathy) is one of the core

functions of relationship counselling.

In couples work we develop an understanding of each person in the presence of the other, and

hence rebuild empathy.Thus, for example, in emotionally focussed therapy, one of the aims is to

uncover the primary and often more positive emotions behind apparently destructive actions. We

can all relate to what is uncovered asthese are universal emotions.

Writing in The Age last Saturday (February 21st

.) about our response to the bushfires, Kate Holden

put it very well:

“Compassion is the sharing of experience, it is literally ‘suffering with’….

It includes of course, respect: the respect to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who have suffered, or to allow them space

when they need it. It need not be solemn, but it is strong.

Compassion is about forgiveness, because it arises from empathy, it embraces understanding, too. Above all, compassion calls

for imagination to conceive another person’s experience…

Compassion is one of thee greatest and most essential pillars of human grace.”

39 Gottman talks of “dreams.” “One of the major things we found is that honouring your partner's dreams is

absolutely critical.” (Gottman, The Mathematics of Love.)





In counselling, this conceiving of another’s experience is connected to three attitudes.

One attitude is acceptance, another is appreciation40

Satir puts it directly that the “therapist’s task is

to bring out the self worth from every position.”41

As she remarked to one juvenile father: “Well, we

know you have good seed.”Or as Minuchin typically remarked to an adolescent: “You are very skilful

in your delinquency”

Thirdly, understanding is related to validation.Alan Fruzetti and Kate Iverson write that: “Validation is

at the core of the couple communication because it communicates acceptance and understanding,

and results in lowered arousal and vulnerability.”42

Validation is also part of the valuable quality or virtue of generosity, in that it gives one ’s partner a

share in the claim to truth.

Beyond “understanding.”

So, understanding is one of the first key steps in couple work.

But references to acceptance, appreciation and validation take us beyond understanding in the

narrower sense to something else. To an understanding in a positive sense.

This leads to Armstrong’s second idea of kindness of interpretation.

But, to introduce this idea, we first need to return again to Iris Murdoch.

…

Perception.

Iris Murdoch herself made enduring contributions to modern theories of love, and Velleman quotes

her frequently.

In her view, love was closely connected to perception.

One of the features of the moral life that philosophy needed to give an account of, Murdoch

believed, were common processes like deliberation and re-description.

In her classic essay The Idea of Perfection43

, she gave a practical example of a mother in law’s

change of perception which is often quoted, and which I am sure every relationship counsellor can

relate to.

Let us suppose, Murdoch says that a mother, on meeting daughter in law feels some hostility

towards her. She is “quite a good hearted girl, but while not exactly common yet certainly

40We go beyond appreciation to an enjoyment of difference.

41

Satir PC42P.182.

43EM p.299-36.





unpolished and lacking in dignity and refinement.”44

In short, the mother feels her son has “married

beneath him, to a silly and vulgar girl.”

However, Murdoch supposes, the mother is “an intelligent and well-intentioned person, capable os

self-criticism, capable of giving careful and just attention to an object which confronts her.” She

engages In a process of observation and reflection which alters her vision. Over the course of time,

she comes to see her daughter in law somewhat differently.

Rather than the view above, she now views her daughter in law as “not vulgar but refreshingly

simple, not undignified but spontaneous, not noisy but gay, not tiresomely juvenile but delightfully

youthful..”45

Reflecting the cognitive mood of recent times, Murdoch sees the experience of good on the world

and in the other as a perception based on a particular kind of “attention”.46

A just and loving attention directed to a person.

Let us turn to a particular type of attention: kindness of interpretation.

…

Kindness of interpretation47

“When our relatives are at home, we have to think of all their good points or it would be impossible to endure them.” George Bernard

Shaw48

Kindness of interpretation is the second quality mentioned Armstrong. This is the loving eyeor seeing

the best in one’s partner.There are three elements to this.

Giving emphasis to how their personalities or activities express some valuable quality or

virtue. E.g. Obsession contributes to making something of life.

Giving an account of the other person’s motivesin positive terms of how they contribute to

the care of others. E.g.

Giving an account of preferences of how the person wants to be(and to be seen).

When we use positive understanding in counselling, the process of developing a positive

construction is something like: we starting with good qualities, then we move on to good motives

and good preferences.

44EM p.312.

45EM p.313.

46 Murdoch adopts the term “attention” from the 20

thcentury mystic Simone Weil.

47To the common objection that kindness of interpretation is a recipe for co-dependency, we need to keep in

mind that seeing the best in the other:

Is not unaware of negative aspects, but sees beyond them

Is not carried to excess

Must be balanced against other virtues that comprise love: such as fairness48

Blaine Fowers puts it more gently: “One of the difficulties in living with someone for many years, evensomeone you love very much, is hat you are bound to gain intimate knowledge of your partner’s faults.”

BMMH, p.165.





Suppose we accept that love involves not just an openness to the other person as Velleman suggests

but also the opportunity to bring out the best in each other, how are we to manage relationships

that bring out the worst in each other.

We do this by developing a positiveconstruction49

that moves beyond mere reflection by noticing and

underlining some things over others.

Let us look in turn at

qualities

motives

preferences

…

Best qualities

Armstrong asks: “What is it, after all, to understand50

another person? “51

He continues:

“…someone who seems just moderately nice - to most people – can flower under the imaginative

attention of a lover’s eye… Because the kind of attention the lover brings allows less obvious

qualities to be seen and appreciated.”52

This notion of the loving eye, seeing the beat in the other, is picked up by Blaine Fowers in his

discussion of the virtue of generosity in relationships.

Fowers regards generosity53

as a central virtue in love, one central component of which is seeing the

best in the other. “Seeing the best in each other is one of the surest ways to encourage the goodness

in each other.”54

Perceptions.

While a constructivist view of kindness of interpretation might see it as a “magic theatre”55

that

creates an unreality. Rather, we may say attention directed to the beloved is not a distortion, but an

acuteness of perception. E.g.

Of course, this is what Iris Murdoch argued. To see goodness we put aside egoism (within which we

may include personal prejudices).

49This is the term favored by Salvador Minuchin.

50 Understanding another person is one of the major avenues of closeness…”

51CL p.94.

52CL p.96. This is close to the notion of bestowal.

53Comprising seeing the best in the other, forgiveness and giving of the self.

54

BMMH p.168.55 Minuchin’s term. The “generative impact”, as Minuchin terms it, of our framings come from their inner,

indeed moral, truth.





Armstrong puts it well: “We’re not inventing their charms, we just happen to be responsive to

them.” (97)

He then goes on to make a profound comment.

“In looking for love, then – in romance, friendship, with our parents and children – we are lookingfor recognition of who we are: recognition which must somehow steer between praise and

plausibility. “56

Between praise and plausibility is where our framings live.

…

Best motives

Not just qualities, but more deeply good motives. We take it that people are trying to do their

best.The classic example that I found quite profound in its simplicity, was an example I heard VirginiaSatirrelate (referred to in Conjoint Family Therapy) where she was working with and angry and

abusive couple. After one particularly hostile angry exchange, Satir remarked: “You must be greatly

disappointed that your relationship has not worked out as you had deeply hoped.”

In this, Satir moves from overt secondary emotions to primary disappointments and then finally to

dreams.

Steve Andreas writes57

that not only was Virginia Satir warm and empathic, but she was also a

“brilliant tactician”:

“One of the most powerful aspects of Virginia’s work was always to assume that ever yone’s intentions were positive, no matter

how awful the be4haviour…

A mother’s nagging became evidence of how much she cared, a father’s punishment for curfew violation became loving

protectiveness…”

Bringing out the best motives is related to what Nel Noddings (following Buber) calls confirmation.

…

Confirmation

Irving Singer and Mike Martin saw caring as the central virtue of love.

In discussing caring, the educational theorist Nell Noddings empasises what she sees as the central

role of confirmation in the development of virtue.This term first appeared on the counselling scene

in the famous dialogue between Carl Rogers and Martin Buber some fifty years ago58

.

Buber appears to disagree with Rogers notion of acceptance59

as determining growth, Buber

maintained that sometimes one had to give weight to the positive forces inside a person.60

56

CL p.59.57P. 53.

581957





“Confirming means first of all accepting the whole potentiality of the other… I can recognise in him,

know in him, more or less, the person he has been – I can say it only in this form –created 61

to

become.”

Clearly one has to be cautious here as Rogers saw the power of acceptance as the one great learning

he had experienced. But in positive framing we confirm what is to come into being as well as what is.

Indeed, Buber writes that one must act “as if one did not.”

Noddings uses the notion of confirmation to differentiate caring.

“When we attribute the best possible motive consonant with reality to the [person]cared-for, we

confirm him; that is, we reveal to him an attainable image of himself that is lovelier than that

manifested in his present acts.”62

Assuming.

There is a sense in which we go beyond confirmation when we assume, particularlyif it is

developmental and prospective. “I have a feeling you are concerned.” (Satir PC) Satir: “She is not the

kind of strong person she seems to be. That, actually, she wants so much to be loved.” (FA 165)

…

Best preferences

Then there is the hope, or as we might call it today, a preference about how one might be. Hopes

are tied up with meaning and values.

The focus is back on our actions, not the other.

In narrative solutions this is described as “locating and circulating stories that are in line with the

person’s preferred view.” (92) In this case the approach goes beyond the identification of the

preferred view to the identification of past or present times that are more in line with this view.

Fowers: “There is no better way to inspire people to be their best then recognising the times when

they are at their best.” (168)

In this way we help shape people’s identity .63

Seeing the best in each other, is related as a background to other key virtues in relationship.

Through it’s nurturance in understanding it assists forgiveness and recuperation from the hurts that

59Buber notes that acceptance is the basis of every “true” relationship.

60 Satir calls it “siding with the interests of the healthy process.” Family of Angels 159.

61P.90-91.

62

C p.193. She goes on to remark that; “…what we reveal to a student about himself as an ethical being has hepower to nurure the ethical ideal or to destroy it.” 63

Fowers, BMMH p.176.





inevitably attend relationships. It gives additional reasons for commitment, fidelity and courage. It

gives many reasons for gratitude.

…

Strategy and creativity

“We chose in the right way because we have come to see the situation in the right way.” (Carla Bagnoli).

I’d like to start drawing some conclusions from all of this.

There are of course many dimensions to couple work.We work in a framework that sees growth and

development as an undercurrent that is always present, in couple counselling we may see this as a

growth in wisdom and maturity.

In this discussion I have focussed on one dimension: the element of cultivating valuable raltionship

qualities (values). It is a form of “focusing on where there is most potential”.

To return to Armstrong’s statement quoted earlier:

“…love is dependent on many other achievements: kindness of interpretation, sympathy,

understanding, a sense of our own needs and vulnerability .”

He continues by concluding:

“And these kinds of capacity and awareness do not spring suddenly into being. Each requires patient

cultivation: we have to take whatever fragile presence that each has in our lives and build upon

that.”64

Cultivation.

We have seen that Louis Schawver sees the therapist’s task as creative to master connotation, or

positive perception.(5) Cultivation is a matter of focus on the positive, which is connected to just

and loving perception.

For Haley, focus on the positive has a strategic dimension. “An emphasis on the positive typically

occurs when the therapist redefines the couple’s motives or goals. For example… the wife seems to

be trying to reach her husband and achieve more closeness with him. If the wife protests… the

husband may be defined as one who wants to avoid discord and seeks an amiable relationship.

64 CL p.158. “If this is true of loving it is also true of being lovable.”





Particularly savage manoeuvres will not be minimised but may be labelled as responses to

disappointment (rather than the behaviour of a cad)” (139)

To haley, strategy is viewed as a way of maintaining control. This is not an unhelpful view in some

ares. However, in couple therapy we may view strategy asa creative way of appreciating

persons.We notice valuable qualitiessuch as compassion and generosity. We do more than reflect,

even though this is the crucial base: we draw out, assume, as we have seen.

We are continually buildings construction, and whenever we come up against a block. Strategy

involves stepping back, we go down or we go above.

It is very tempting to give advice when a person fails to act. And yet this violates the central rule of

accepting the person where he is.65

For example, in a client who cannot act, instead of advising him

to act, we may do the opposite. In particular, rather than instructing him to act we may

(paradoxically almost) show a great respect for his inability to talk. Or if we feel this puts the person

under pressure, we may simply take a developmental view and indicate we will do it soon. We donot manipulate here, rather we avoid manipulation.

Indeed the process of counselling itself can be seen as the negotiation of values. Relationship

counselling could only thinly be described as a technique in a narrow sense. Rather, is it a practice

involving the activation of valuable relationship qualities.

“For we can now see that social theory and research are simply disinterested neutral accounts of

how things operate. Rather, we are inescapably involved in expressing, challenging, strengthening,

and shaping contemporary perspectives concerning what is worthy or admirable in human life. We

must recognise that we are continually engaged in an ethical activity that grows out of and helps

shape our current conceptions of the good life.”66

…

Conclusion

“If love aims at happiness, and happiness depends on virtue, then the central thing we want to know about a prospective partner is this:

what virtues do they possess and what are their defects of character? Virtue and discernment are, therefore, the pillars of love…”67

Relationships are both unique and universal.

Each relationship is different, and finds creative ways of being together.

65“Throughout the process, however, I would accept his attitude toward the subject, adjust my requirements

in the light of his interest and ability, and support his efforts nonjudgmentally. He must be aware always that

for me he is more important, more valuable, than the subject.” (Noddings, C p.174.)

66

Richardson et.al. RP p.306.67Armstrong CL 112 Well it is not quite like this, as we can love a person for their imperfections, even faults.

But despite this, the virtues when expressed are part of love itself.





At the same time, each relationship is universal, in that it reflects the universal qualities embodied in

love.

In relationship counselling we work with uniqueness and universality. Each couple has its own

unique way making love work, and at the same time is an instance of the universal that is love.

How is understanding and seeing the best related to our discussion of love as:

An appreciation of another heart

A generous giving

Armstong and the two threads:

“Our thinking about love – and our experience of love – exists at the intersection of the traditions

which derive from Aristotle and St. Paul. The first concentrates on a person’s virtues – on their

healthy capacity for happiness. The second invites us to a charitable interpretation which seeks out

good qualities underneath the evident failings and inadequacies – and takes a sympathetic view of

those failings”.68

“A contemporary view of love, therefore, aligns love both with liking and with kindness.”69

Compassionate understanding and seeing the best are central to the key virtue of caring.

So, perhaps the philosophy of love has something to offer to relationship counselling. It reminds us

of the background of love in relationships, and indeed reinforces what Martin calls “erotic faith” in

contrast to disillusionment about love.(LV 4) This might help us from agreeing with the mundane

objection to a focus on love that it asks too much of us humble human beings. Instead, we may see

love as helping us in very practical ways to become better persons70

. “Fulfil our nature by learning to

follow our nobler feelings and inclinations.”

“…this perspective directs our attention and efforts toward helping couples to cultivate a shared

understanding of what is worth pursuing in their lives. It emphasizes the development of a couple's

identity in their shared life and an appreciation of the rich sources of meaning in their relationship

history and in their future aims. These considerations broaden our concept of a good marriage

beyond the individuals' marital satisfaction to encompass the shared purposes of marriage and the

ways that a couple's history that makes the relationship unique.” (Fowers )

In each unique relationship there is contact with the universal value of care.

68

CL p.116.69Cl p.117.

70Fowers




References.

Rob Anderson and Kenneth Cissna, The Martin Buber Carl Rogers Dialogue, State University of New

York Press, 1997.

Steven Andreas, The True Genius of Virginia Satir , Psychotherapy Networker, 1989.

John Armstrong, Conditions of Love, Penguin Books, 2003

Carla Bagnoli, The Exploration of Moral Life, in Iris Murdoch, Philosopher, Oxford University Press.

Stephanie Coontz, Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage, Penguin 2006.

Blaine Fowers, Beyond the Myth of Marital Happiness, Jossey Bass, 2000.

Harry Frankfurt , The Reasons of Love, Princeton University Press, 2004.

Alan Fruzetti and Kate Iverson, Mindfulness, Acceptance, Validation and individual Psychopathology

in Couples, Chapter eight in Stephen Hayes et. al., Mindfulness and Acceptance, Guildford Press,

2004.

Jay Haley, Strategies of Psychotherapy , Grune and Stratton, 1961.

Jeanette Kennett, True and Proper Selves: David Velleman on Love, Ethics 2008.

Mike Martin, Love’s Virtues, University Press of Kansas, 1996.

Milton Mayerhoff, On Caring, Harper Perennial, 1990.

Salvadore Minuchin, training seminar, 1979.

Iris Murdoch, Existentialists and Mystics, Penguin 1999.

Nel Noddings , Caring, University of California Press, 1984.

Frank Richardson, Blaine Fowers, Charles Guignon, Re-Envisoning Psychology , JosseyBass 1999.

Virginia Satir, Conjoint Family Therapy , Science and Behavior Books, 1964.

Virginia Satir, training seminar, 1982.

Irving Singer, The nature of Love, University of Chicago Press, 1987.

David Velleman, Love as a Moral Emotion, Ethics 1999.

David Velleman, Beyond Price, Ethics 2008.

the philosophy of love and relationship counselling

Documents