Richard Bandler - Changing with Families - A Book About Further Education For Being Human

5. (Response Behavior (receiver): As mentioned previously, the response can be regarded as the beginning of a new cycle of communication. In addition, unless the receiver of the original incongruent communication is himself congruent, he will respond incongruently and another calibrated communication cycle begins. Therapists need to carefully avoid developing, without their being aware of it, calibrated communication with those with whom they are working in therapy, and themselves reinforcing the destructive patterns rather than developing new choices with the family members. An example of this is the situation in which the therapist responds to an attack by one family member on another member as though he (the therapist) were the one being attacked.

Typically, calibrated communication cycles between members of a family will become more and more abbreviated until merely the raising of an eyebrow will trigger pain and rage in other family members.

We now present an example of a highly calibrated, pain-producing communication cycle from a family therapy session.

The family in this session consists of three members:

Henry — the husband/father: placating, with a kinesthetic representational system as primary;

Michele — the wife/mother: blaming, with a visual representational system as primary;

Carol — the daughter (age 16): super-reasonable, with an auditory representational system as primary.

Earlier in the transcript, each of the family members identified the name of what he/she wanted for himself/ herself (their nominalizations) as follows:

Notice in this portion of the transcript the way in which the experiences each family member wants (their Complex Equivalences) interact so completely that, even though the original names show little overlap, they fit together in a tight cycle of calibrated communication.

…

Michele: ... At this point, I don't even care what you do; I don't see what difference it . . . (left finger pointing, voice shrill)

Carol: OK (interrupting) . . . I'll just check out then . . .

Michele: .. . (interrupting and screaming) Don't you ever turn your back on me, you . . .

Carol: But you said that you didn't care what I did so I .. . (turning to Henry) . . . you heard what she said,

didn't you?

Henry: Huh?

Michele: Henry, she's doing it again — she's not respecting me.

Henry: (moving over to Michele's side and placing his arm around her waist supportively) . .. Well, perhaps I could . . .

Michele: (interrupting Henry) God, Henry, don't paw me — I'm serious about this child's disobedience and lack of respect.

Henry: (voice low and shaky, eyes moist and downcast) I was just trying to . . . oh, forget it (turning away).

Michele: Oh, God, not you, too!!

Carol: It's so ridiculous — Mom, I think I'll split, OK?

Michele: ... I couldn't care less what you do now.

Carol: OK, goodbye!!

Michele: (screaming) Young lady, if I've told you once I've told you a thousand times . .. Henry, why don't you ever do anything about this?

Carol: But, you said . . .

Henry: (overlapping with Carol) Huh?

…

Notice how the seemingly diverse names of what each family member wants (nominalizations) actually interact: Carol wants equality — described as an experience, this means that she wants to be listened to as seriously as she listens to other, family members. Michele wants respect — to her, this means that the other family members should look at her when she is doing something which involves them. Michele begins by saying (in words) that she doesn't care what Carol does. Carol, with her model of the world (auditory), takes Michele's words seriously and turns away, ignoring the incongruent messages from her mother's body movements and voice tonality. Michele then explodes, as, to her, turning away is equivalent to failing to show respect. Carol seeks support from Henry, asking him to verify what Michele has said. Henry, given his kinesthetic representational system, has missed nuances of the exchange, which required visual and auditory representation for full understanding. When Michele demands that Henry respond to her, he does so in the way which is most appropriate for his model of the world: He moves to Michele's side and touches her. She, however, wants his visual attention and fails to recognize the kinesthetic contact by Henry as a caring response. Henry now feels rejected and shows this by turning away, unloved. This, of course, is a signal to Michele that he doesn't "respect" her. Carol now asks Michele for permission to leave. Michele responds to Carol incongruently . . . and the cycle begins again. This example shows the way in which very different-sounding words (nominalizations) can be closely connected — so closely, in fact, that they form what we call a calibrated communication cycle.

The remainder of this book presents some of the choices for effective, creative intervention by the therapist in such calibrated communication cycles.

We now briefly describe the way in which the five steps in the communication cycle in which feedback is present are different from calibrated communication cycles.

1. Communication (communicator): In the case in which the communicator is congruent — all of the messages match — there is no difficulty; the communicator is unified in his expression. In the case in which the communicator is incongruent, he is in contact with his ongoing experience so that he himself will detect the incongruency in his communication. This allows him many choices.

2. Experience (receiver): If the communicator is congruent in his expression, no difficulty arises. If the communicator is incongruent, the receiver, if aware of the incongruency, has the freedom to gracefully call the communicator's attention to the incongruency, and, if asked, the receiver can then offer additional feedback to the communicator to assist him in integrating the conflicting messages and the models from which they arise. For example, when faced with a person whose head is slowly shaking from side to side, while he states that he really does want to wash the dishes, the receiver may gently comment: "I heard you say you want to do the dishes, and, at the same time, I saw your head shaking slowly from side to side. I'm wondering if you can help me make sense out of this for myself." The important point here is that the receiver has the freedom to comment and the incongruent communicator has the freedom to accept the comment without feeling attacked, without his self-esteem's [21] By self-esteem we mean the person's understanding of his own worth as a human being. See Peoplemaking, Science and Behavior Books, 1972, Chapter 3, and Conjoint Family Therapy, Science and Behavior Books, 1972, Chapters II and VI, for an extended discussion of this concept. being threatened. These are the essential ingredients of communication with feedback.

In the case in which the receiver is initially unaware of the incongruity in the original set of messages, he may only notice a vague uneasiness which marks the discrepancy between the meaning of the messages received at the conscious level of awareness and the meaning of the messages received at the unconscious level. In this case, he has the freedom to mention that he feels uneasy and to explore the source of his uneasiness with the communicator. This requires that the receiver have a sensitivity to his own ongoing experience as well as the ability to explore his feelings of uneasiness without his self-esteem's becoming involved.