A discussion about Love

We based our discussion on ‘A general Theory of Love’ by Lewis, Amini and Lannon.

The book is about the science, as far as it is understood, behind the human need for meaningful connection. It looks at the evolution of the limbic system whose resonance, regulation and revision define our emotional existence. It then explores the effects of our early attachment to care givers to our style of relating and the healthiness of the relationships we tend to make. In particular, the tendency to seek out relationships which are similar to those we grew up with ‘Familiarity trumps worth’. As adults, when we experience relationships which stray from the ‘limbic prototype’ it feels like isolation and explains why so many people chose to stay in a miserable relationship rather than choose a partner their attachment mechanism cannot recognise.

We discussed the way therapy might effect change by ‘two limbic systems resonating’ and were a bit disconcerted by the suggestion that the client becomes more like the therapist as the work continues. We noticed that person centred theory would claim that each person has an inherent organismic self with his own capacity to heal, whereas these authors would say that being able to reach the healthiest version of the self also depends on the care the child had. There needs to be a close and in tune emotional connection for therapy to be helpful. Emotional distance is doomed to failure.  The personhood of the therapist is the converting catalyst. The relationship with a given therapist is unique and therefore the journey the client goes on in therapy is unique. This is why self- help books alone will never work to alter a person’s limbic responses.

We talked about the extent to which we ‘give ourselves’ as therapists whist keeping a foot in both realities, and whether or not this is risky. Love is defined by Lewis et al as ‘simultaneous mutual regulation wherein each person meets the needs of the other ‘. The therapist’s role is to track and respond to what is affecting us in the relationship with the client – i.e. at all times in the session the limbic system must be engaged. If love is a wholly positive appreciation of the other at every level, is therapy love?  Love cannot be extracted, only given and a loving relationship takes time, it is iterative. This led us to consider the short comings of quick forms of cognitive based therapies and our belief that therapy works from the bottom up (emotion) not top down (thinking). We wandered into the area of boundary transgressions, the ways touch can be misunderstood or miscommunicated.