In “We Have to Talk” Janet Surrey and her husband Samuel Shem write about their experiences with the application of the self-in-relation model developed by Jane Baker Miller, Judith Jordan and Irene Stiver.

Together they conduct an amazing amount of workshops with men and women, boys and girls, sometimes couples, working with “gender dialogues”. Their the goal is to teach people to create good connections in which individuals ànd their relationship can grow.

The beauty of this work is that the authors learn and teach simultaneously about connections and how they work between the genders. They experiment with connecting in a great variation of groups and with diverse real life situations.

The Connection Model (The Relational Model) is given an opportunity to get firmly integrated into the awareness of the participants and the readers. This work invites a person to look at his or her personal experiences and re-think them in terms of disconnection and connection, of separate-self and self-in-relation.

How does gender affect men and women as they relate?

Let me first acknowledge that any concept we may have about the genders and their differences is rooted in our ways of thinking and talking about the world. In her book “The Less Noble Sex” Nancy Tuana writes the appalling history of scientific, religious and philosophical conceptions of woman’s nature. She says in her postscript: “The “difference” we are asked to accept, even celebrate, between woman and man perpetuates the conception of woman as lacking, for we continue to privilege the male as the true form, the “ideal” against which woman is to be measured, and to be found lacking.”

Both women and men suffer from these deep-rooted notions and the persisting “misinterpretation” of reality. The described historical (almost evolutionary) denigration of the feminine is a human ailment we need to address and heal.

Nancy Tuana envisions two necessary steps in this process:

· First an awakening, a growing awareness of the ways in which our concepts are woven into the fabric of our ways of thinking and being in the world. We need to become aware of the patterns in order to recognize and reject them in contemporary conceptions of woman/man.

· Second, she suggests we must reject the idea of difference as lack, and replace it with an understanding of difference that allows for otherness without hierarchization.

Tuana’s book covers the first step. She gives a detailed description of how the woman was viewed through the ages, and how these views permeated our thinking. Surrey and Shem’s book is an admirable example of how we could work in applying the second step.

Our world has transformed so much, especially in the last 100 years. We humans have a hard time keeping up with all the changes. New worldviews alter our perception, but even though we experience things from a new perspective we still seem stuck with our “old” pictures of the world. Normally we are unconscious of the underlying patterns of our understanding. But our blindness makes integration of the new difficult. Our tendency to think in old conceptions is hidden; we are not aware of what we cannot see.

Tuana writes: “Although belief in woman’s inherent inferiority is not expressed as explicitly today as it was in earlier centuries, it remains a part of the fabric of Western culture.” The patterns of the gender system found in the twentieth-century remain – more invisible and persistent than we realize, grounded in the traditions discussed in her book.

I think we all suffer from this. This, for instance, could well be the reason of the staggering number of divorces nowadays. How can we apply new insights about equality in marriage? How can women and men transform the way they are together. How do we reach the underlying layers and patterns of our understanding. How can we bring about true transformation?

Awareness definitely is a first step: we can transform/replace something, in this case our understanding of gender differences, once we become aware of how we understand these differences (erroneously).

Surrey and Shem’s work is focused in this direction; they teach women and men to re-evaluate their understanding and become aware of what is from an self-in-relation (otherness without hierarchization) perspective.

They use gender dialogues to unmask “invisibilities” in man-woman relationships. They suggest that masked differences between the sexes can lead to disconnections and that unmasking them can help men and women connect.

In other words: when an invisible gender difference remains invisible to one or the other gender, it can lead to disconnection and suffering. According to S+S this is because people tend to conclude that there must be something wrong with them personally and get angry or frustrated, turning away from connection. When differences become visible, the personal (negative) aspect drops away and connection becomes possible again.

What I like about this approach is that once we become aware of differences and of the imbalance they creates, we can make the choice and consciously change what we are doing.

It is important for women and men to become aware of the differences. It is also important to create an understanding of how these differences developed.

(With it we un-cover our hidden patterns, we hopefully make room for a different approach, a different programming of for instance our children...)

When you react different from how I would react I am puzzled. When I see blue, I expect you to see blue too. When you claim to see not blue but green, I would normally suspect you are pulling my leg or unwilling to understand me. I would probably feel you do not invest enough in our relationship.

Once I know you react differently because you (really!) have a different perspective I can accept that. I can empathize with your green once I realize your eyes react differently, or whatever else causes the difference.

In my practice I often talk about differences between people, between women and men, and I am always amazed by the transformations awareness, in this case of the differences, creates.

Furthermore, I wholeheartedly agree with the notion that the responsibility for the “we” should be a shared responsibility. The dialogues Surrey and Shem use engage both partners in the relationship process; they are both involved, both equally committed.

When we are discussing relationships that are empowering to both partners I think this is extremely important. As girls in our dominant culture are valued to be other-oriented, the emphasis on empathy (not instinctual but learned) can have a downside. The centrality of relationships with extreme emphasis on being “empathic” and “supportive” in order to create conflict-free relationships with men, can discourage full expression of a woman’s development. (Empowering for him, not empowering or even disempowering for her).

It can lead girls and women to carry one-sided responsibility for the care of their relationship with men simply because they are the ones trained to be other-oriented.

The paradox is that by sacrificing the fullness of personal expression, by diminishing themselves to “fit” the image they are told will succeed in their relationship with men, women preclude the possibility of the authentic relationship they yearn for. This is so sad, not only for the women, but for the men too.

Many women (and men) are suffering from exactly this relational trap. I recognize it so well from my own life, my sisters’, my mother’s, my grandmother’s…

Still, I often feel selfish when I make choices that fit (express) who I am, and not selfish enough (stupid?) when I choose to let go of my thing for the sake of my relation with the other. As if I needed to choose! The self-sacrificing is so deeply engrained that I hardly recognize the sacrifice and often only see the importance of attending to the other. Being supportively there for the other is also my thing, who I am, or at least that is how I was “domesticated”. And of course I get really frustrated once in a while because I seem to have to be supporting and there for everyone; why did I draw this ticket from the lottery??

Well, at least now I am aware of the paradox and it makes me feel better. I am making my choices and I am response-able (to myself) for how I express myself.

Working through the book two critical remarks come to my mind though.

First, I think these difference-related connection-disconnection-connection movements are happening in all kinds of relationships. Two-gender relationships of course have issues with differences and of course some of these differences are gender related. However I still would like to address these differences as culturally (etc. etc.) determined and not as inherent in the male or female gender per se. Differences between people have their origins in so many more aspects as for instance race, religion, place of birth, social background, upbringing and education. Even the different way in which a family (of origin) celebrates birthdays can be a difference that creates disconnections in a relationship (LMII p8.).

Second, the idea of the perfect (life-long) relationship, or the ideal of the (two gender) relationship somehow triggers rebellion in me. It’s almost the same as having the male as the true form.

Could it not be that we have outgrown the existing couple-, family-community model? What about our “couple” true form? Is it truly so that people live the fullest lives if they have a mate? Are couples with children happier than single people without kids? Are people who had a series of relationships less empowered by their partners than people who stay with the same person all their lives? Is a hetero-sexual relationship healthier than a homo-sexual one?

Only after my divorce I realized how “couple-minded” our society really is. Probably nobody means me harm, but I often encounter situations in which I am truly surprised how uncomfortable I feel. It is almost as if I should feel ashamed of my status, failing to comply with some unwritten rule. The divorce is a blemish and being a single woman/mom is also definitely not good (but neither is having a manfriend, so what can you do?).

Nowadays I don’t mind that much, but it amazes me how many times I need to explain to total strangers that I am divorced (for instance because my kids have a different name or because there is no man around).

My recently widowed mom says the same; it is extremely difficult for her to stand alone after more than 50 years of marriage, not only because she misses my dad, but also because she always feels the odd person out since everything in her known world is organized “in couples”.

Another example could be one of my sisters having a womanfriend. Or a woman over forty explaining why she doesn’t have children.

Well, I know so many people who don’t fit the “ideal”.

It is weird that, while everybody wants to be so tolerant and open-minded (we allow same gender marriages in Holland), our community still is so organized around (two-gender) couples with (preferably two) children. An excellent example of what we are talking about, new insights old structures. But I feel all that is changing rapidly.

From their experience conducting the gender workshops Surrey and Shem distill a few major gender differences that cause most relational impasses; prolonged or repetitive disconnections between women and men:

· female relational yearning vs. male relational dread

Women are trained and valued to be more “other-oriented”. Men have been valued much more for self-referential thoughts, questions, and actions.

As a result women yearn to hold the connection (part of their self-in-relation identity) while men dread loosing their separate-self identity by getting “drawn” into a connection. Her invitation seems like a demand, her curiosity like criticism. He translates her yearning into “it’s never enough”, she translates his dread into “he is not committed”.

As we saw, a combination of the female (other-oriented) and the male (self-oriented) dynamics causes a power imbalance; one gender receives more attention than the other. A possible step to bring the two different strengths into connection is shifting the focus away from the men’s experience, for instance through two-sided relational curiosity. The woman consciously refrains from asking too much and takes her place in the relationship, the man learns to ask more and consciously makes room for her.

Surrey and Shem claim that not only the women, but also the men yearn for this kind of connection. Their workshops seem to prove their point; most people want their relationships to work, they want to be(come) relational.

Women ànd especially men should learn on a experienced and conscious level that the relational way of being is two-directional. They need to realize that it is as empowering to understand the other as it is to be understood, to impact the other as it is to be impacted.

In my view the most important issue Surrey and Shem point out here is that if dread is a by-product of the attempt to create a “we” and thus dread is relational as it arises in the connecting, then the solution to the impasse around dread is in the “we” as well. In other words: we can not individually work through something that originates in the connection between us. A real eye-opener.

From the workshops it becomes clear that, where people are willing to participate in a respectful dialogue around differences, there is a shift or better an expansion into mutuality. Both partners feel more connected and more themselves.

In taking each other seriously they go beyond themselves.

Furthermore, most people in a relationship are willing to invest in it. People feel good in good relationships, they feel bad in bad ones. The best way (the only way?) to make a relationship work is for the two partners to cooperate. They need to work from and for the third element in the relationship; the mutual “we” that is created between you and I. Surrey describes mutuality as “a creative process in which openness to change allows something new to happen, building on the different contributions of each person”.

· female process vs. male product

Women are often trained and valued for working with others, in process, to reach a goal. Again, the relationship and relational process are emphasized.

To women the goal or product seems less important than the connection.

Men are trained and valued for getting to the bottom line, for fixing things, for being competent at getting results: for making a product. For them connection can be sacrificed for things they want or have to do.

As women are more focused on process, they are the natural caretakers of the relationship. They are responsible for guarding and maintaining the continuity of connection; noticing the qualities of connections at any particular time, but also over time.

Another aspect is relational timing. Surrey and Shem suggest that the process of responding about feeling takes longer for men than for women. Women have more rapid access to their feelings, as well as a greater fluidity and multiplicity of feeling.

The ability to focus on more than one thing at a time (a strength identified in women) helps a women to process what is said while engaging in the conversation. Women brainstorm with others, finding their response in the process of dialogue. Men have been trained to come up with an answer or solution. Before they say something, they want to have a clear picture of their “product”. They respond without public processing.

Of course I recognize this; I can think of another difference: a woman fully accepts that she and other women are changing their minds all the time. She realizes her thoughts are “in process”. A woman listens and reacts to what I say in that moment. When I say something else tomorrow she understands; she recognizes the swings (how wonderful!). A man might have trouble with this inconsistence. What you say “counts” (is your product). Inconsistence is not the key to be taken seriously in his world.

· female power-with vs. male power-over

Women are inclined, by their self-in-relation-orientation, to enter a dialogue from a power-with stance. In power-with situations power is shared among diverse equals, dialogue is valued more than debate, and process is crucial to handling conflict.

For men, the introduction of difference (as in separate-self vs. other) results in comparison and comparison often becomes defined by who has power over whom. So difference, disagreement and conflict are seen as threatening. Men often act from a position of self-interest resulting in a power-over stance in dialogue with others. When power is challenged, when men feel their dominance is threatened, their tendency is to turn defensive, hostile, in some cases even violent.

Looking at the dynamics of relationships from a perspective that emphasizes the mutual “we” forms a good example of the application of the Connection (self-in-relation) Model developed by the Stone Center. The solutions for breaking through an impasse are connection solutions, based on the priority of the connection, in this case between men and women.

Whereas the separate-self model centered on the self, creating an inevitable spit between self and other (inviting comparison and thus power differential), the connection model suggests that a desire for connection is at the heart of healthy human development.

Healthy connections occur in relationships that are moving toward mutual empathy and mutual empowerment, where disconnections are considered a stimulus for new growth and reconnection. The connection model takes Tuana’s second step: an experienced understanding of difference that allows for otherness without hierarchization, and opens the door for true mutuality. A mutuality, a “we” that allows self, otherness inclusive, its proper place in relation.

Surrey and Shem look at gender differences and the resulting difficulties or conflicts in relationships from the self-in-relation perspective.

They demonstrate that the transition from an “I versus You” toward a “We” perspective has amazing positive effects. People seem to feel well in a “we”.

Most couples are able to describe their “we” and to formulate a relational purpose statement in which they articulate a vision of this “we”.

In my view every connection with another human being optimally results in a “we” feeling. With the people around us, with the people we are closest to, we maintain this sense of “we” during a longer period of time and in various degrees of intensity.

To me “we” is almost an equivalent of “home”. Home is the place where I can be myself, where I am safe and welcome as I am. Home is also a place to start from and a place to come back to.

When the “we’s” in my life are places of peace, empowerment and growth (vs. for instance battlefields or prisons) I can relax. I can feel truly home and rest, recuperate from my not-so-“we” encounters with the world, and rejuvenate.

I experience such places to be of enormous importance.