"Redefining Love and Attachment in Relationships"

"Exploring the Missing Pieces in Emotion-Centered Couple Therapy"

Every few years, I learn something new that makes me want to refund money to all my patients. The last time I experienced this exciting and awkward feeling of professional growth was during a month of advanced training with Professor Lez Greenberg. He came to Israel to train therapists in the emotion-centered treatment approach, and our conversations led to my previous columns, which discussed the relationship between emotion-focused therapy, gaining insights, and how coaching can change thinking patterns without generating deep emotional change.

As an emotionally focused couples therapist, I shouldn't have found these trainings so exciting. Psychologist Sue Johnson, who developed the more familiar approach of emotion-focused couple therapy, which places secure attachment at the foundation of normal couple relationships, was a student of Professor Greenberg and acquired her theoretical and clinical foundation as his protégé. However, it became clear that some elements were lost in Johnson's translation of Greenberg's emotion-focused couple therapy, and I discussed these aspects with him.

"Attachment is not love. Secure attachment is often part of a cluster of components that create a bond of love, but it is not the only satisfying factor. The other two critical factors are my sense of identity and the attraction I feel towards my partner. While it's important to feel secure in the marital relationship and know that my partner is there for me, I also need my partner to validate my sense of identity and see me in a positive light. I need their gaze to fill me with pride and not shame.

In my work with couples, I often hear statements like: 'I know you love me, but you don't really see me.' This happens because it's simply not enough to feel secure; we also need to feel seen and validated. This is true not only in romantic relationships but also in the relationship between parents and children. A child can feel safe and protected by their parent but still feel misunderstood and unseen.

The fact that I aim for the marital relationship to provide security and build my identity, along with the desire for the relationship to be secure, can create power struggles within marital relationships. These struggles are not necessarily about the need to control others but revolve around questions of leadership, followership, and being right. This is where my perspective differs from an attachment-based view, which suggests that one partner's need to be right stems from insecurity in the relationship.

"In the research-based school of thought I follow, the desire to be right can be based on the need to preserve one's identity even if one doesn't want to feel independent and separate from their partner. I simply want my partner to see me as a good person and to validate both my identity and my interests, whether it's playing tennis or riding a motorcycle. This is not just about secure attachment but a separate need that should be fulfilled in a healthy relationship."

According to attachment-based couple therapy, secure attachment is the foundation that allows individuals, including children, to explore their environment. Is this also a misconception?

"This is indeed another misconception. Secure attachment is not the answer to everything, and I believe that a theory placing one motivation or one explanation for human behavior above all others cannot be correct. There must be multiple motivations that explain the way we act in relationships, and it's evident that our environmental interactions are part of our psyche because they are critical to our survival.

Attachment theory suggests that a child will explore their environment if they feel safe. However, the truth is that a child will explore even when feeling unsafe. When connected to the previous question, a secure base drives our need to ensure our relationship is a safe space for us. But the natural inclination to explore also underlies the need for marital relationships to shape our identity in a positive way."

Critics of Sue Johnson's couples therapy approach argue that a secure relationship does not guarantee a satisfying erotic life. What's your perspective on this?

"Sexual attraction is the third pillar of a strong relationship, alongside identity validation and secure attachment. It is an independent factor that cannot be fully explained by the other components. Passion is a powerful force, and people can experience it not only in connected and secure relationships but also in various situations, even without a secure connection."

Does this mean that when a couple seeks emotional-focused therapy for reduced desire, your view is that it's an independent variable that can't be influenced by therapy?