{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_29899/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_29899","id":"gutenberg_29899","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29899","summary":null,"tags":["Category: How To ...","Category: Parenthood & Family Relations","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Sociology","Marriage counseling","Society of Friends"],"text":"Produced by Mark C. Orton, Tamise Totterdell and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMarriage Enrichment Retreats\n\nStory of a Quaker Project\n\nBy\n\nDavid and Vera Mace\n\nFriends General Conference\n1520 Race Street\nPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102\n\n\n\n\nAbout the Maces\n\n\nDavid and Vera Mace have spent almost forty years making a vital\nrelationship of their own marriage, and, because of their inherent sense\nof purpose, consequently have enriched the lives and marriages of\ninnumerable persons in some sixty countries around the world.\n\nDavid Mace's first degree was in science from the University of London.\nEarlier family influence led him on to Cambridge University, a degree in\ntheology, and work in a mission church in the slums of London. Vera,\nalready in youth work, joined him after their marriage in the work of\nthe mission church. From that point on theirs was a partnership which\nfocused on counselling persons in trouble. Later, a PhD. in sociology\nfor David and a Masters degree with a thesis on Christian marriage for\nVera, moved them into full time marriage guidance work. (Two children, a\nwar causing forced separation for a time, and a pacifist stand by David\nwhich also made life more difficult, only strengthened them in their\nlife's purpose.) Before leaving Britain permanently in 1949, they had\nset up more than one hundred marriage guidance centers and achieved\ntheir goal of recognition for the Marriage Guidance Council.\n\nIt would be impossible to enumerate specifically here all the activities\nof teaching, published writing, training seminars and travels the Maces\nhave shared. Theirs has been a life of richly varied experiences and\nshared responsibilities.\n\nFrom 1960-67 the Maces served as joint Executive Directors of the\nAmerican Association of Marriage Counsellors. At present they are\nmembers of Summit Friends Meeting in New Jersey, currently living in\nWinston-Salem, North Carolina, where David Mace is Professor of Family\nSociology at the Behavioral Sciences Center, Bowman Gray School of\nMedicine. David Mace delivered the 1968 Rufus Jones Lecture, _Marriage\nAs Vocation_. This pamphlet and the project it presents is an outgrowth\nof that experience.\n\n\n\n\n\"How important is it that Quakers should have good marriages, and what\nshould Friends General Conference be doing about it?\" This question was\nasked at a gathering of ten married couples, all of them Friends,\nrepresenting both the U.S. and Canada.\n\nWhat brought these couples together was the common bond that all had\nbeen leading marriage enrichment retreats at which six to eight\ncouples, all with stable marriages, spent an intensive weekend sharing\nmarital growth around the theme \"communications-in-depth about\nrelationship-in-depth.\"\n\nThe project of which they had been a part dates back to the 1968 Rufus\nJones Lecture, _Marriage as Vocation_.[A] The impact of the Lecture and\nthe weekend following resulted in the Religious Education Committee of\nFriends General Conference sponsoring a project to train couples\nselected by Yearly Meetings to lead marriage enrichment programs in\ntheir own regions. The first group was trained in 1969, the second in\n1971, and, as the majority of them met again the consensus grew that\nthis project had been sufficiently tested to provide the basis for a\nmore extensive movement within our fellowship.\n\nA number of concerns emerged that can best be expressed as questions:\n\n    Do Friends reaffirm their traditional belief in marriage and\n    the family as the foundation unit of the Meeting?\n\n    Do Friends believe that their mission to spread love and peace\n    in the world begins with the practice of love and peace in\n    their own primary relationships?\n\n    Are our Meetings doing their utmost to make use of modern\n    knowledge and experience in the preparation for marriage of\n    those for whom they accept responsibility?\n\n    Are our Meetings satisfied with what they are doing for the\n    care and support of the marriages of their members, and that\n    divorces that occur could not have been prevented by any means\n    that lay in their power?\n\n    Would Friends in positions of leadership be willing to\n    demonstrate their support for this project by participating in\n    retreats at which they can examine with others the\n    potentialities for growth of their own marriages?\n\nThose who met at Pendle Hill were not in a position to answer any of\nthese questions in a definitive way. It is clear that answers would\nvary from one Friend to another and from one Meeting to another. They\nfelt, however, that it would be appropriate and timely for these\nquestions to be more widely considered. Moreover, their own experiences\nof marital growth, resulting from their sharing with other married\ncouples, had been so rich and rewarding that they felt they had \"good\nnews\" to pass on, and were constrained to do so.[B]\n\n\nTHE PLAN\n\nYearly Meetings throughout the United States were invited to select with\ncare a married couple for a weekend of training at Pendle Hill, the\nQuaker study center near Philadelphia.\n\nDuring the six months following the training each couple would have the\nopportunity to conduct a marriage enrichment retreat arranged by their\nYearly Meeting. Then all the couples would reassemble at Pendle Hill to\nshare their experiences. The project would be evaluated, and further\naction would depend on whatever judgment was reached.\n\nWe two were asked to lead the two training weekends. Our decision was to\nbegin with an actual retreat for the group of couples since this\nexperience would, in our judgment, provide the best training we could\ngive them.\n\n\nPREMISES FROM EARLIER EXPERIENCES\n\nIn 1962 Joe and Edith Platt, a Quaker couple who helped run a retreat\ncenter called Kirkridge, invited us to conduct a weekend for married\ncouples. We were at that time joint Executive Directors of the American\nAssociation of Marriage Counselors, so this was a challenge we could\nhardly evade. Although we had been involved in many lectures and\nconferences about marriage, and plenty of marriage counseling, a retreat\nfor married couples was a new venture. However, we accepted the\ninvitation, conducted the retreat to the best of our ability, and\nlearned a great deal in the process. There is no need at this point to\ngo into detail about the procedures we followed for we improved on them\nconsiderably later as we gained further experience.\n\nThe first Kirkridge retreat was successful enough to encourage the\nPlatts to ask us to come again and again. We then began to receive other\nrequests as it became known that we were available for this kind of\nleadership, most of them being under religious auspices. The retreats\ngenerally began on Friday evening and ended with Sunday lunch. One, for\nMethodist ministers and their wives, lasted five days, and proved to be\nthe inauguration of a nation-wide program now being run by the United\nMethodist Church under the title \"marriage communication labs.\"\n\nThese experiences brought us into close touch with many \"normal\" married\ncouples. Our practice was to insist that the retreats were _not_ for\ncouples with problems, but for those who considered they had\nsatisfactory marriages and wanted to explore their potential for further\ngrowth. As counselors, we had previously dealt only with marriages in\ntrouble. Now we found that many of these \"normal\" couples were settling\nfor relationships that were far short of their inherent potential. Some\nexhibited the same self-defeating interaction patterns which we were\naccustomed to finding in couples with \"problems\"--but either they had\naccepted these poor patterns as inevitable, or the conflicts they caused\nhad not yet reached crisis proportions.\n\nMatching our observation of these couples with some of the research\nfindings on marital interaction, we arrived at four important\nconclusions:\n\n1. Only a small proportion of marriages came anywhere near to realizing\ntheir full potential. Lederer and Jackson[C] suggest that the proportion\nof \"stable-satisfactory\" marriages in our culture does not exceed 5-10\npercent.\n\n2. Most married couples desire, and hope for, the achievement we have\ncalled \"relationship-in-depth.\" Early in their married life, however,\nthey find their growth together blocked by interpersonal conflicts which\nthey either cannot understand or are not prepared to make the effort to\nresolve. They settle for a series of compromises, resulting in a\nsuperficial relationship.\n\n3. As time passes, the couple either accepts this unsatisfactory\nsituation, or it becomes progressively intolerable. They are usually so\n\"locked into\" their self-defeating interaction pattern that they are\nquite unable to change it by their own unaided efforts. Some seek\nmarriage counseling, but often too late for it to be effective.\n\n4. This tragedy of undeveloped potential could be avoided in many\ninstances if married couples had a clearer concept of the task of\nmarriage and did not have to struggle in almost total isolation from\nother couples going through the same experiences. The potential of\nmarried couples for giving each other mutual help and support is very\ngreat; but it is unable to function because of an unrecognized taboo in\nour culture.\n\nThis taboo, hitherto unrecognized as such, prevents married couples from\nsharing their intramarital experiences with other couples. In many\nsettings married couples form friendships with each other, enjoy social\ncontacts, even work together on projects; but there is always a tacit\nunderstanding that they do not reveal to each other, further than is\nunavoidable, what is going on in their husband-wife relationships.\nComplex mechanisms for evasion and mutual defense exist. Some of these\nare familiar, strong hostility in one partner when the other appears to\nbe revealing too much; making jokes to relieve tension when some inner\nsecret of the marriage accidently breaks to the surface; silence or\nwithdrawal when \"outsiders\" appear to be probing too deeply. These\ndefense systems work so well that it is not unusual when a couple begins\ndivorce proceedings for others in their circle of acquaintance to\nexpress astonishment in such terms as \"We are amazed! We had no idea\nthat they were having trouble!\"\n\nWe could speculate about the reasons for this taboo: a protection\nagainst public humiliation, since we all want others to feel that we can\nmanage competently such a basic undertaking as marriage; a safeguard\nagainst exploitation, since a discontented marriage partner offers fair\ngame to a predatory third person; a link with our sexual taboos, since\ndifficulties in marital adjustment often have a sexual component, and\nany suggestion of sexual incompetence is deeply wounding to our pride.\nIt could reflect the traditional tendency to regard the family as a\nclosed \"in-group\"--an attitude not without advantages for its strength\nand stability.\n\nWhat we are concerned about, however, is that this taboo is being\nmaintained with a strictness that goes far beyond its usefulness in our\nchanging society. It is depriving married couples of help and support\nfrom each other, at a time when marriage has become much more difficult\nand demanding than it was in the past. Indeed, we believe that with the\nemergence of the nuclear family as the norm in our Western culture, the\nindividual marriage has been deprived of the supports derived from the\nextended family of the past precisely at a time when our rising\nexpectations of highly rewarding interpersonal relationships are\nsubjecting it to demands it is often unable to meet. In the larger\nfamily groupings of the Orient, despite their hierarchical structure, a\ngreat deal of help and support can become available to the individual\ncouple in times of trouble from those with whom they share a common\ncorporate life.\n\nIt may well be that the new \"life styles\" being experimented with\ntoday--mate-swapping, multilateral marriages, and group marriages, for\nexample--represent attempts to enable the individual marriage to break\nout of its isolation and to gain better communication, interaction and\nneeded support from other marital units.\n\nA striking illustration of this trend toward deep sharing between\nmarried couples has come to our notice from an unexpected quarter. Two\nmarried couples from a conservative Christian background decided to meet\nand talk together, with complete detailed frankness, about their sexual\nexperiences. A series of such meetings was held, the conversations\ntaped, and subsequently published in book form.[D] The couples, after\ncareful consideration, decided not to hide behind a cloak of anonymity,\nbut to use their real names and disclose their identity.\n\nConfronted with this new trend, we take the view that the taboo against\nthe sharing of husband-wife experiences between one married couple and\nother married couples can with impunity be relaxed in appropriate\nsituations with benefit to all concerned. Between such couples the\ndevelopment of great warmth, empathy, mutual understanding and support,\ncan contribute significantly to the enrichment and growth of the\nindividual marriages involved. This is essentially what happens in\nmarriage enrichment retreats.\n\n\nCOMPARISON WITH THERAPY AND ENCOUNTER GROUPS\n\n\"How do our marriage enrichment groups differ from group marital therapy\non the one hand, and from encounter groups on the other?\" These\nquestions are raised by many people. What are the answers?\n\nGroup therapy for married couples is now widely available, and its\neffectiveness has been established. Our marriage enrichment groups\ndiffer from therapy groups in three important respects.\n\nFirst, marital therapy is undertaken with couples who have serious\nproblems, often because the individuals concerned suffer from\npersonality disorders. When marriages are not stable a good deal of\npathology may emerge in the course of group interaction. Severe\nconflict between husband and wife may have to be permitted to surface\nand be handled openly by the therapist.\n\nThe second important difference is that therapy groups generally\ncontinue meeting, on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, over a long period of\ntime--as long as a year in some cases. Moreover, individual couples may\nalso undergo counseling (individually, conjointly, or both) in\nassociation with the group therapy either before being admitted to the\ngroup or concurrently with the group experience.\n\nThe third difference is in the leadership pattern. Therapy groups are\nled by professionally qualified persons--psychiatrists, clinical\npsychologists, social workers, marriage counselors. They play a fairly\ndirective role. The leaders are often male and female co-therapists, but\nare seldom husband and wife. The role model aspect of the enrichment\ngroup, as well as the participatory aspect, are therefore much less\npronounced and the group is less free to find and follow its own\ndirection.\n\nAn enrichment group consists of several married couples not in need of\ntherapy meeting on an intensive basis but for a limited time period. In\nour opinion such groups need not be led by professional therapists;\nalthough, other things being equal, that is of course a decided\nadvantage. We have come to the conclusion, however, that effective\nleadership can be given by lay couples if they are carefully selected\nand trained.\n\nThe encounter group, a general descriptive term, is intended to include\nmany variants. We have participated in such groups, studied their\nprocedures, and adapted some of these to our marriage enrichment\nretreats. Couples who have been involved in encounter groups adjust\nquickly and easily to the methods we use in marriage enrichment, are\ngenerally very cooperative, and an asset to our groups.\n\nThere are two significant respects in which our marriage enrichment\nretreats differ from encounter groups. First, encounter groups are\ncomposed of individuals, while our groups are confined to, and led by,\nmarried couples. This distinction calls for different approaches. There\nis a greater complexity in the leadership, and a greater complexity in\nthe group itself. The encounter group is confined to interactions\nbetween separate individuals and usually these individuals have not\nknown each other before joining the group and probably will not continue\nassociation afterwards. By contrast, we have at least three kinds of\ninteraction: between individuals within the group, between couples\n(including the leading couple) within the group, and between husband and\nwife within the marital unit.\n\nThis multidimensional aspect of the enrichment group not only makes it\nmore complex, but also increases its potential. This is particularly\ntrue after the experience is over. From our knowledge of encounter\ngroups we are aware of the problems encountered by the individual who,\nafter experiencing a new and invigorating openness and warmth in\ninteraction with others returns home to an atmosphere in which a similar\nquality of relationship cannot be sustained unless there are already\nfriends and associates at home who have had the benefit of earlier\nencounter experiences. In the case of our marriage enrichment retreats,\nthe experience is not gained by an isolated individual, but by a\npreexisting social unit, so that new levels of openness and warmth which\nthe couple have experienced in the group can continue to be maintained\nafter their return home. This would suggest that the \"casualty rates\"\nfor couples would not be nearly so high as for individuals. We know of\nno precise study that has investigated this, but our general impressions\nwould seem to confirm it.\n\nThe second significant difference between encounter and marriage\nenrichment groups raises a somewhat controversial question. Encounter\ngroups are more ready to evoke negative interaction between\nparticipants, while we place major emphasis upon positive interaction.\n\nIf our judgment of encounter groups is in this respect inaccurate we are\nopen to correction. We have, however, gained the impression from many\nsources that an important technique used in these groups is to provide\nopportunities for the participants to secure cathartic release of their\npent-up hostilities, including hostilities engendered by, or projected\nupon the group leader or one or more of its members. We recognize that\nmany people in our culture are pregnant with suppressed hostility or\nrage, and that the provision of properly controlled opportunities for\nits release may constitute a commendable service; and since the group\nmembers are generally strangers who will not be personally and socially\ninvolved later, no entangling complications are likely to follow.\n\nFor our married couples, the situation is different. We do not mean that\nthey do not have hostile feelings toward each other. They often do, and\nthis comes out clearly and unmistakably. We do not mean, either, that\nhealthy discharge of these feelings might not be good for them--in our\ntherapeutic work with individual couples in conjoint interviews, we make\nfull use of such controlled opportunity for cathartic release with\nensuing interpretation. It is our considered opinion, however, that in\nthe particular context of our enrichment retreats, unrestrained\ndischarge of hostile feelings should in general not be encouraged.\n\nOur reasons? One, the shortness of the available time might not permit\nthe proper resolution of such episodes. Two, a couple who have openly\ndischarged rage against each other may well react later with deep\nfeelings of humiliation that are not easily assuaged. Three, coping with\nthis kind of explosive emotional discharge could be alarming for lay\nleaders not accustomed, as the therapist is, to the expression of deep\nfeelings which normally are not displayed in public. Four, other members\nof the group could be similarly disturbed and diverted from full\nparticipation in the main purpose of the retreat. This complaint has\nactually been made, and we think justly, by participating couples in a\ngroup where a violent and prolonged emotional episode took place.\n\nWe have been criticized for taking this position, but have not been\npersuaded to change our considered opinion. That opinion is reinforced\nby another conclusion, namely, that when genuine positive interaction is\npromoted, negative emotion, even when it is strong and intense, tends to\ndissolve and wither away. Couples have told us how their fierce hate\nmelted in the atmosphere of warm and loving support engendered in the\ngroup, and with the stirring of compassion within them, they began to\nsee each other in a new light. We are inclined to the view, after\nhearing such testimonies, that in deploying our therapeutic armament we\nhave given short shrift to the power of love not only to cast out fear,\nbut also to turn away wrath.\n\n\nLAY LEADERSHIP\n\nOur decision to train lay couples for leadership was not hastily made.\nIn fact in the early years during which we were leading retreats we knew\nof no other couples who were doing so. After seven years we felt that we\nknew what we were doing. Although we expected criticism from some of our\nprofessional colleagues this has not developed to any significant\ndegree, and we are now entirely satisfied that we were justified in\ntaking such a calculated risk. We know of no case where our lay couples\nhave encountered crisis situations which they were unable to handle with\nwisdom and skill.\n\n\nSTRUCTURING THE RETREAT\n\nThese retreats require a minimum of organization and structure, but that\nminimum must be firmly insisted upon. We strongly favor the residential\nweekend retreat, although we have met with groups of couples for\nseparate evening sessions spaced out over four to six weeks. This\napproach was found to be less effective, but decidedly better than\nnothing for couples who cannot get away from their homes.\n\nWe would regard five or six couples as the optimum number, but seldom\nhave we enjoyed this luxury. Usually we have had to accept our upper\nlimit of nine couples, in addition to ourselves, making a total group of\ntwenty. Often more couples apply than we can take, and the organizers\nplead with us to accept the maximum number because family crises can\ncompel couples to drop out at the last moment. Two couples short at a\nretreat planned for five couples would leave only three. Therefore our\nnormal procedure has been to ask for six to eight couples.\n\nAlthough the selection of the couples has been left to the organizers we\ninsist that husband and wife both undertake to come together, which\nmeans that if one has to drop out, both do so; we insist that they come\nonly on condition that they both continuously participate in the entire\nretreat, from beginning to end.\n\nNo requirements regarding age, race, vocation, education, or\nsocio-economic status are made. There are advantages in having a\nhomogeneous group of couples, but there are also advantages in a\nheterogenous group. Our groups have included one engaged couple and one\nhoneymooning couple who came straight from their wedding as well as\ncouples old enough to be retired. They have included highly qualified\nprofessionals and blue-collar workers, PhD.s. and high school drop-outs.\n\nCouples coming to our retreats should have what they consider to be\nreasonably good and stable marriages since our purpose is not to provide\ngroup therapy, but to foster marital growth. The reason for this\nrequirement is that we do not believe that group marital therapy can be\nattempted on a short-term basis, and it is not the purpose in these\nretreats. Many couples come to these retreats with a good deal of\napprehension, and some have told us that they would not have come at all\nhad they not been assured that it was definitely not for \"problem\ncouples.\" Despite all our efforts, couples with severe marital problems\ndo get in occasionally under the wire and we found no way of avoiding\nthis.\n\nWe are often asked to provide preparatory material for the participants,\nincluding books to read, but we do not think there is any way to\n\"prepare\" for this kind of experience; and recommending books to read\nmight convey the impression that we are going to engage in intellectual\ndiscussion, which is not the case.\n\nWe ourselves do not \"prepare\" for the retreats and do not ask the\ncouples to do so either. It is an adventure in sharing into which we all\nmove together, ready to take it as it comes.[E]\n\nThis does not mean, however, that our sessions are totally\n\"unstructured.\" A timetable is worked out by the group, not imposed upon\nit. Obviously it has to be planned in relation to the place and the\ncircumstances of our meeting.\n\n\nINTRODUCTION TO THE FRIENDS' EXPERIENCE\n\nIn the living room of \"Waysmeet,\" the house at Pendle Hill in which we\nheld our first training retreat, there was just room for ten couples to\nsit in a wide circle.\n\n\"What we are going to do here,\" we explained, \"is to experience together\na marriage enrichment retreat. We hope this experience will be\nmeaningful to you all personally, quite apart from the fact that you\nwill be learning how to conduct a retreat yourselves after you return\nhome. We know of no better way to train you than to let you go through\nfirst what others will later go through under your leadership.\n\n\"However, we shall be working together at two levels. At any point we\ncan break off and examine together, objectively, what has been happening\nto us subjectively. You can ask us as your leaders any questions you\nwish, about what we are doing, or why we are doing it.\n\n\"Our goal is very simple and very clear. As married couples we are here\nto engage together in communication-in-depth about relationship-in-depth.\nEverything we do will be done with the intention of sharing with each\nother the directions in which we want our marriages to grow. How far we\ntravel will be decided not by us as leaders, but by you as a group. No\none will be put under pressure to do anything he does not wish to do,\nor to say anything he does not wish to say.\n\n\"Our function as leaders is to be 'participant facilitators.' We are in\nevery sense members of the group, and will fully share all the group's\nexperiences. We do not wish to be treated as experts or authorities. The\nonly way in which we shall exercise our role as leaders is to help the\ngroup to achieve its goal, or to tell it if we think it is not taking\nthe best direction toward that goal. We make no claim to be infallible.\nIf at any point you don't agree with us, it is your duty to say so. If\nin any situation we don't know what to do next we shall say so frankly\nand ask you to help us.\n\n\"Now we are ready to begin. The first thing we must do is to get to know\neach other as couples. The sooner we get well acquainted, the faster we\ncan move toward our goal.\"\n\nMost of the first evening is devoted to the process of getting to know\neach other. Our favorite method is to ask the couples to volunteer in\nturn to be freely questioned by the group. We usually volunteer first,\nand make it clear that we are prepared to answer the most personal\nquestions. We indicate at this point that we would like to be called by\nour first names, and we hope the others will agree to do the same. The\nquestions then begin, and when there are no more, we ask another couple\nto volunteer. We prefer not to go round the circle in order, or take\nnames alphabetically. Everything is done voluntarily as far as possible,\nto encourage spontaneity.\n\nTime goes quickly as the questions come thick and fast, and it is\nusually necessary to limit the questioning, or to ask for brief answers.\nIt should be emphasized that the participants are free at any time to\nask each other personal questions; this understanding creates a climate\nof openness which emphasizes the goal of communication-in-depth.\n\n\nTHE GROUP IN ACTION\n\nAssembled again on Saturday morning, we begin by preparing our \"rolling\nagenda,\" as one of the trainee couples called it, in order to keep a\nrecord of what the group members want to talk about. The aspects of\nmarriage they want to include for discussion before the weekend is over\ngives us clues to the issues that are important to them. The list with\nwhich one of our trainee couples started their retreat was:\n\n    What is the state of our marriage now? How have things changed\n    as our relationship has grown?\n\n    What are the memorable experiences in our lives that have\n    enriched our marriage?\n\n    What have we found to be the most effective ways of handling\n    conflict?\n\n    What do we feel about a depth relationship between one of us\n    and another person outside the marriage?\n\n    Have we found ways of sharing that have contributed to our\n    spiritual growth?\n\nWe ask the group members if they have any \"concerns\" explaining that if\nmembers of the group feel unhappy, or anxious, or angry, about anything\nthat has happened, they have a duty to share their feelings with us all\notherwise the fellowship will be broken. Situations have occurred in\nwhich someone had a concern that another member of the group also had\nand neither was expressing.\n\nAs a group cannot function effectively without openness to each other on\nthe part of its members, neither can a marriage grow without the same\nkind of openness between its partners. This is what every married couple\nshould be doing every day--raising issues that need to be discussed, and\nbeing honest about disturbed or negative feelings.\n\nThere is a sequence of events that is typical of most retreats. Nearly\nalways, we begin with general discussion of some aspect of married life.\nAt this stage we are testing each other, so we take refuge in\ngeneralizations. A common theme is the difficulties of raising children.\nWe can all commiserate with each other about the problems of the\ngeneration gap for it is \"safer\" to talk about parenthood than about\nmarriage. If the talk _does_ focus on marriage, such topics as working\nwives or overworked husbands or the sharing of household tasks can be\ndiscussed without risk.\n\nThe group will move at its own pace from the superficial testing stage\nto the deeper sharing. The leaders can facilitate this process, but it\nisn't helpful if they try to hurry it. \"Personalizing\" the discussion by\nusing such questions as \"Mary, did you raise that subject because it's\nan issue between you and Tom?\" or \"I wonder if any couple could give us\nan example from their own experience of what Harold has been talking\nabout?\" is helpful.\n\nOnce a couple have shared some situation in their own relationship, one\nof the leaders can ask \"Did any of the rest of you identify with Peg and\nLarry as they were talking?\" This will help other couples to share\nrather than discuss, and move the communication to a deeper level. A\nphrase we often use is \"making yourself vulnerable\"--an act of trust by\nsharing a problem about which the couple feels some embarrassment. The\ngroup's response to this is invariably warm and supportive with an\neffort to help by sharing similar problems which others have experienced\nor are experiencing. Sometimes a major breakthrough is achieved when the\n_leaders_ are willing to be vulnerable.\n\nThis process of deep sharing must not be seen as an orgy of humiliating\nconfessions. Not at all. The areas where the growth of a marriage is\nblocked are almost always sensitive ones which we tend to keep hidden\nbecause they make us feel inadequate or defeated. It may well be that a\nway out is not really difficult to achieve, but as long as we are\navoiding the whole problem we are not likely to find a solution.\nBringing the issue out in the open, in the presence of other couples\neager to help because of similar problems may suddenly break the log-jam\nand move the relationship along the path to enrichment. This happens\nquite often during retreats, and the results are usually decisive and\nlasting. The resolution may come for a particular couple when they are\nalone together later reporting it to the others; or it may actually come\nin the supportive atmosphere that the group is able to generate. Such\nexperiences are deeply reassuring and rewarding for all the\nparticipating couples.\n\n\nFACILITATING EXERCISES\n\nThe use of simple \"exercises\" in these retreats has been found to\nbe very helpful. What they do is to break up our stereotyped and\noften rather sterile patterns of interaction when people get\ntogether. They are simply devices designed to bring about _couple_\ninteraction--sometimes for all the couples in the group together,\nsometimes for one couple at a time.\n\nA good example is asking each couple to draw a picture of their\nmarriage. Paper and crayons are made available, and the couples scatter\nabout the room and work on their pictures. They may choose to do this\nverbally (discussing the drawing together as they go along) or\nnon-verbally (working at it together in silence). When all have\nfinished, we come back to the circle of chairs, and each couple in turn\nlays their picture on the floor and explains it to the group. This is an\nactivity the couples always seem to enjoy; and it enables us to learn a\ngood deal about each other. The leaders, of course, also draw their\npicture, and display it with the others. We have accumulated quite a\ncollection!\n\nOne of our trainee couples introduced dancing. Lights are dimmed in the\nroom, a record is played, and all the couples dance, each couple\nimprovising whatever movements express their mood. They then sit round\nand report on what the experiment meant to them.\n\nOccasionally when we are faced with a controversial subject (for\nexample, \"How far are you prepared to allow your partner to go in\nfriendships with the opposite sex?\"), we might ask all the couples to\ndiscuss this privately together for ten minutes, and then report to the\nwhole group what conclusions they have reached.\n\nAnother kind of exercise is what we call \"dialogues.\" A volunteer couple\nsit in the center on chairs or on the floor facing each other, and talk\nback and forth on a subject chosen by the group but accepted by them.\nSome topics have been \"How do we deal with conflict in our marriage?\";\n\"How do we overcome fears of intimacy?\"; \"What are our procedures in\ndecision-making?\"; \"How do we meet each other's dependency needs?\" The\nsubject should of course focus on husband-wife interaction.\n\nIt is best for the interchange between the couple to be slow and\ndeliberate. Indeed, it is helpful for each to allow a period of silence\nbefore replying to the other (learning to pause in this way is a very\nhelpful means of making husband-wife discussions more effective).\nSometimes two or three couples may volunteer; all sit in the center of\nthe circle (the \"fishbowl,\" as it is sometimes called) and the dialogue\nis taken up by each in turn. While the dialogue is going on, other\nmembers of the group should not intervene or in any way act as an\n\"audience.\" The general discussion comes afterwards, and provides an\nopportunity for others who identified with the couples in dialogue to\nshare what they felt.\n\nAn interesting variant is to ask if another couple will volunteer to sit\nwith the couple involved in dialogue, and to function as _alter egos_\n(Latin for \"other selves\"). The _alter ego_ on each side listens\ncarefully to what is going on, and intervenes from time to time to\nverbalize deeper levels of communication and interaction that are not\nbeing expressed in words. Playing the _alter ego_ role requires some\ninsight and skill, but it is highly effective when well done.\n\nAnother exercise for individual couples is \"positive interaction.\" A\nvery simple device, it is usually highly effective and often deeply\nmoving. For this reason we often make it the last activity on Saturday\nevening. It can either be carried out by about three volunteer couples,\nor all couples may agree to take turns. The couple sit facing each\nother, holding hands, and are asked to tell each other, simply and\ndirectly, what they specially like about each other, being as specific\nas possible. Surprisingly, it turns out that very few couples have ever\ndone this before, and everyone finds it a heartwarming experience. We\nthink we have encountered here another taboo in our society--married\ncouples spend infinitely more time telling each other what they _don't_\nlike about each other than what they _do_ like. Most of us have a\nstrangely inhibited self-consciousness about spelling out in detail what\nwe mean by \"I love you.\"\n\nWe generally conclude the retreat with a short session of perhaps half\nan hour in which we share with each other new insights and the rewarding\nexperiences we have had together. This may appropriately be followed by\na Quaker meeting for worship.\n\nThese exercises are no more than illustrations. Leading couples are\ninventing new ones all the time, and there seems to be no limit to their\ningenuity. The books by Herbert Otto and Gerald Smith, listed in the\nbibliography, are full of good ideas.\n\nIn essence, these were the experiences in which we and our nine trainee\ncouples were involved during the crowded hours we spent together at\nPendle Hill. Before they took their departure, we enjoined them not to\ntry to repeat anything we had done unless they could do so entirely\nnaturally and comfortably. They would develop their own patterns of\nleadership, and these would be more effective than anything we had\ntaught them.\n\n\nEVALUATION AND REAFFIRMATION\n\nThe follow-up retreat at Pendle Hill was much more than a reunion or\nseason of rejoicing. We undertook together an intensive evaluation of\nwhat had been experienced. One couple, for example, had had to cope with\na marriage in serious conflict so we set up a role-playing re-enactment\nof the situation to serve as a learning experience for the whole group.\n\nWe also tried to pool our ideas about the best way to plan and lead\nmarriage enrichment retreats. Our agenda covered the following areas:\n\n    _Organizing the Retreat._ Time, place, cost, recruitment of\n    couples, size of group, preparatory materials.\n\n    _Methods and Techniques._ Introductions, agenda, directing\n    discussion, dividing up, special exercises, crisis situations,\n    evaluation.\n\n    _Leadership Roles._ Qualifications, goals, training, couple\n    teamwork, preparation, vulnerability, follow-up.\n\n    _Future Plans._ Further retreats, training new leaders,\n    cooperation with other groups, books and materials.\n\n    _Other Areas for Enrichment._ Retreats for youth, premarital\n    couples, parents and teen-agers, solo parents, senior citizens,\n    Meeting members.\n\nA number of issues of particular concern to the group were extensively\ndiscussed. One was the distinction between our retreats and group\nmarriage counseling on the one hand, sensitivity training and encounter\ngroups on the other. Another issue concerned our emphasis on positive\ninteraction, and the discouragement, though not avoidance, of overt\nexpression of negative feelings between members of the group. We also\ndiscussed what causes marriages to get \"stuck\" so that they cease to\ngrow. This led us naturally to consider the limitations of lay leaders\nwithout training in marriage counseling, and how to make effective\nreferrals to professionals when this seems to be indicated. We also\ntalked about the use of silence, so natural to Friends, and how far\nnon-Quakers could accept this.\n\nIn all our discussions we were looking forward. There was a confident\nassurance that we had found something of great importance that must be\ncommunicated to others--to the Society of Friends generally, but to the\nwider world as well.\n\n\nTHE SECOND ROUND\n\nAnother training program was organized and a second group of couples\nwere invited to Pendle Hill. On a Friday evening in November 1971,\ntherefore, another wide circle of married couples assembled in the\nfamiliar living room at Pendle Hill; later went forth to conduct\nretreats arranged by their Yearly Meetings; and returned triumphantly in\nApril 1972 to report to one another what had happened.\n\nSix of these couples were new. With them we invited two experienced\ncouples from the first group of trainees. Our idea was that they might\nhelp in the training of the other six, and be ready then to graduate as\ntrainers in later regional programs.\n\nWe have used this method in training couples before, encouraging a\ncouple conducting a retreat for the first time to team up with another\ntrained couple, each supporting and helping the other in shared\nleadership. This is a good learning process; and now we were applying it\nat the level of training potential leaders, in the expectation of making\nourselves dispensable. A movement of this kind should not be allowed to\nfocus on personalities. It will prosper best by involving many couples\nin a broad sharing of leadership responsibility.\n\nWe might have asked ourselves whether what had happened in 1969-70 could\nhappen again in 1971-72. Would the high caliber of the earlier group of\ncouples be sustained? Would they again learn quickly enough through the\nexperience of one retreat to function as successful leaders? Would they\ncome back with the same enthusiasm and delight? The answers to these\nquestions would do a great deal to validate the plan we had adopted.\n\nWhen our couples returned in April 1972, the answers were resoundingly\nin the affirmative. In one case, it was true, the local arrangements had\nbroken down and they had not had the opportunity yet to conduct a\nretreat--but they came to the reunion just the same. (Their opportunity\nfor leadership came later.) Reports from all the others, including the\ntwo \"veteran\" couples, had the same authentic ring of success that had\nbeen sounded so unmistakably a year earlier.\n\nQuoting from the group:\n\n\"We felt our job was to provide some structure to help the experience\ndevelop, and then let people sort it out for themselves. Both of us felt\nit was most important to ride with the tone of the developing situation,\nand avoid any use of the more aggressive techniques of confrontation.\nStan was worried on Saturday that the talk was too general. Then one of\nthe wives broke through by asking if we could discuss something \"...\ndown here, where I am ... like SEX?\" So we got there ...\"\n\n\"We viewed our task as leaders to be one of creating and sustaining an\natmosphere in which each couple could speak personally concerning their\nmarriage. We felt we best accomplished this task when we participated as\na couple in the same way as we urged the others to participate.\"\n\n\"We regarded ourselves as facilitators. We tried to be creative\nlisteners; to put questions to the group that would help them to share\npersonal experiences; to bring about a change of pace when we sensed\nthis to be necessary.\"\n\n\"We were quite relaxed. We tried to be perceptive of the needs of\nindividual couples. We hope we didn't talk too much.\"\n\n\"We saw ourselves as equal participants with the others, and\nfacilitators of a process which started well with frank, meaningful\nconversation. We did agenda-building at several points. Our aim was to\ncreate an atmosphere in which defensiveness could be replaced with\ntolerant acceptance, and trust and confidence could grow as we heard\neach other and learned from each other.\"\n\n\nTHE PROBLEM OF UNFELT NEED\n\n\"The underlying problem is the fact that the marriage enrichment retreat\nmeets unfelt needs. People don't feel keenly that they need it. If you\nthink your marriage is sound, you aren't strongly motivated to spend a\nweekend making it even sounder. To get the tingle of a potential\ndeepening and enriching takes emotional impact. This means hearing from\nsomeone obviously sensible who is warmly convinced about it.\"\n\nA number of theories were developed to explain this resistance to our\nproject. In general, it is true that it takes _problems_ to motivate\nmarried couples to seek help, just as it takes pain to induce many\npeople to visit a doctor; and in both cases, action may prove to be too\nlate to be effective. On the other hand, many couples with basically\nstable marriages are wistfully aware that their relationship falls short\nof their expectations. But it takes a strong stimulus, in the form of a\ncordial personal invitation, to get them to take the necessary steps to\nenroll for a retreat.\n\nWhatever the cause of this reticence, expressing itself on occasions as\nresistance, it seems an inappropriate response to the needs and\nopportunities of our day and age and one of the many factors responsible\nfor the alienation between young and old which is popularly termed the\n\"generation gap.\" Our trainees were themselves mainly in the second half\nof life, and they well understood the \"privatism\" that is a legacy of\nour past. They themselves, however, had lost nothing, and gained a great\ndeal by the efforts they had made to cultivate greater openness to\nothers, both in their marriages and in their wider relationships, and\nthey would lovingly invite other Friends to make the same venture. They\nwould also plead with Friends to give stronger support to, and undertake\nmore active participation in, a project to provide marriage enrichment\nretreats for the couples in the care of our Meetings.\n\nSome views were expressed suggesting a special reticence among Friends.\nThere seemed to be some foundation for two theories--first, that Quakers\ntend to be very heavily involved in social projects, sometimes to the\nneglect of their own family relationships; and second, that they tend to\nbe somewhat puritanical in the sense that they consider it improper to\nopen their private lives to others. There may be a deep dichotomy in\nattitudes of Friends here such as reported by one couple: \"vivid\nimpressions of honest encounters between those who regard the worship of\nGod as a private affair, and those who feel the need to reach out to\ntheir Meeting community for personal support and a sense of communion\nwhich includes closer relationships with other Friends.\"\n\nLike other Friends, we are finding that these experiences can release\nhitherto unrealized and untapped resources of spiritual strength and\npower. As expressed by one couple: \"For two years we passed through a\ndark time in our family, trying to find resources to deal with a\nseemingly insurmountable problem. At our first retreat, with the loving\nsupport of the group, we were able as a couple to recover our\nself-confidence, sense of worth, and well-being, and reaffirm our\nstrengths to each other.\n\n\"The family problem has now been happily resolved, and we have found\nextra strength to participate fully in the expression of our Quaker\nconcerns in the larger community. Our Meeting did much to sustain us\nthrough the bleakest times, and bring us back into clearness and light;\nbut what helped us the most to help ourselves was our activities with\nthe marriage enrichment project. We continue to nurture at home the new\nopenness and depth we have discovered, and have committed ourselves to\nmaintain the healthy growth that has been made possible for us.\"\n\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nWhat has been described in this booklet could easily be dismissed as a\nnew fad that will gain limited attention for a short time and then be\nforgotten, but it may instead be the discovery of vast untapped\nresources that can raise primary human relationships to new and higher\nlevels of richness and creativity. If this should be the case the loss\nof this great opportunity would be tragic.\n\nThe need of men and women today, as in all ages, is to learn to live\ntogether in love and peace--to build up rather than to tear down, to\ncooperate rather than to compete, to find meaning in life through open\nsharing with others rather than through narrow self-seeking.\n\nReligion has always striven to further these goals, because they\nrepresent the spiritual development of man. But again and again the\nsimple truths spoken by great religious leaders have been lost in the\ncomplexity of elaborate institutions and the lust for power.\n\nFriends have been distinctive in their stubborn resistance to these\ndiversions and distortions of the simple truth that we must learn to\nlove God and man, and that there is no other path to redemption. In each\nnew age, Quakers have found ways to witness to the way of love and the\nway of peace.\n\nMay it be that a central calling for Friends today is to respond to the\ndisintegration of marriages and the alienation of the generations by\nfinding in their own marriages, and in their family relationships, a new\nquality of creativeness based on a deep and honest sharing of life? Can\nlove be spread abroad in the earth, if it cannot be nurtured in the\nclose and intimate relationship between man and woman, the nuclear\nrelationship where love begins and where life begins? Can one proclaim\npeace among the nations if unable to contrive to live in harmony with\nthose under one's own roof?\n\nThe mood of our age is compounded of hope and despair. We have achieved\nso much, in terms of technological skill and power; and we have achieved\nso little, in terms of harmonious human relationships. We have created\nthe power to make this world, compared with what it has been, a paradise\nfor man to enjoy, but we have failed to make it possible for man to\nenjoy what has been achieved. With the threat of an atomic holocaust\nhanging like the sword of Damocles over our heads, we know beyond doubt\nthat we must learn the art of living together in love and peace or lose\nall we have.\n\nIn such an hour, what can we do?\n\nWe can make a beginning. We can begin at home--with ourselves, and those\nnearest and dearest to us. We can strive to learn the great art of\nliving in the school that has been provided for us. We can build\nrelationship-in-depth at the foundations of human society: for in the\nlast resort the quality of relationships in any community cannot rise to\nany higher levels than the quality of relationships in the families that\nmake up the community; and the quality of relationships in any family\ncannot rise any higher than the quality of relationships in the marriage\nthat has brought it into being.\n\nYes, there _is_ something we can do to witness to the power of love and\npeace. We can make a beginning. Marriage enrichment is such a beginning.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n\n[Footnote A: Mace, David R., _Marriage As Vocation_, F.G.C. 1969.]\n\n[Footnote B: Reprinted in slightly revised form from Friends Journal,\nDecember 15, 1972.]\n\n[Footnote C: Lederer and Jackson--_The Mirages of Marriage_, Norton,\n1968, page 129.]\n\n[Footnote D: Cicero and Fahs--_Conversations on Sex and Love in\nMarriage_, Word Books, 1972.]\n\n[Footnote E: We have capitulated at times and have prepared a brief book\nlist. A larger list appears in the appendix.]\n\n\n\n\nBOOKS FOR FURTHER READING\n\n\nThere is as yet little in the way of literature about marriage\nenrichment. Here are a few books which have been found useful by leaders\nof retreats.\n\nBach, G. R. and Wyden, P., _The Intimate Enemy_. Morrow, 1969,\n  (available in paperback). A belligerent but challenging book\n  about marital conflict.\n\nClinebell, H. J. and C. H., _The Intimate Marriage_. Harper and\n  Row, 1970. Perhaps the best book available on marriage enrichment.\n\nHastings, D. W., _A Doctor Speaks on Sexual Expression in Marriage_.\n  Little, Brown, 1966. A reliable guide written by a psychiatrist and\n  marriage counselor.\n\nLederer, W. J. and Jackson, Don D., _The Mirages of Marriage_.\n  Norton, 1968. A challenging and unusual book on contemporary\n  marriage.\n\nMace, D. R., _Success in Marriage_. Abingdon, 1958. An easily read\n  paperback on the areas of marital adjustment.\n\nMace, D. R., _Getting Ready for Marriage_. Abingdon, 1972. A\n  practical guide for the couple preparing for marriage.\n\nMace, D. R., _Sexual Difficulties in Marriage_. Fortress Press, 1972.\n  A short and simple explanation of sexual inadequacy and the new\n  approaches to its treatment.\n\nMcGinnes, T., _Your First Year of Marriage_. A very helpful guide\n  for the recently married couple.\n\nO'Neill, G. and N., _The Open Marriage_. A best-seller on some of\n  today's new concepts of marriage.\n\nOtto, H., _More Joy in Your Marriage_. Cornerstone Library 1969.\n  A book full of practical ideas for increasing marital potential.\n\nPeterson, J. A., _Married Love in the Middle Years_. Association\n  Press, 1968. An excellent book on a neglected subject.\n\nRubin, T. I., _The Angry Book_, Macmillan, 1969.\n\nSamuel, Dorothy, _The Fun and Games of Marriage_. Word Books,\n  1973. Thoughts on marriage as a depth relationship, written\n  by one of our Quaker trainees.\n\nSmith, G. W. and A. I., _Me and You and Us_. Wyden, 1971. A\n  book of exercises (47 in all) for couples seeking marriage\n  enrichment. Written by a couple who participated in one of\n  our earliest retreats at Kirkridge, then went into the field as\n  full-time family therapists.\n\nWest, Jessamyn, _Love is Not What You Think_. Harcourt, Brace,\n  1959. Written by a distinguished Quaker novelist.","title":"Marriage Enrichment Retreats: Story of a Quaker Project","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":8678}