We-ness and the Cultivation of Wisdom in Couple

Therapy
KAREN SKERRETT*

Wisdom has played a key role in the attempt to understand the positive nature of human
behavior since the time of Aristotle. In the past decade, psychology and related fields have
experienced an expanding interest in the empirical and theoretical pursuit of wisdom. The
relational dimension of wisdom has received less attention, although it may be viewed as
embedded in the practice of all couple therapists. This article integrates previous work on
resilience and positive functioning in committed partnerships and proposes relational wis-
dom to be a master virtue of relationship development, one that can be cultivated across the
lifespan of the partnership. The aspects of relational wisdom such as self-reflection, attune-
ment to self and other, balancing conflicting partner aims, the interpretation of rules and
principles in light of the uniqueness of each situation and the capacity to learn from experi-
ence point to couples therapy as an ideal context for such skill building. Wisdom is built
through dialog and the resulting individual and couple stories can serve as touchstones to
what is most precious and vital in the relationship as well as guides for action through
challenges and conflict. A clinical case is described to illustrate selected aspects of rela-
tional wisdom and implications for therapeutic practice.

Keywords: Wisdom; Relationship; Development

Fam Proc 55:4861, 2016

INTRODUCTION

We are not provided with wisdom, we must discover it for ourselves, after a journey through the
wilderness which no one else can take for us, an effort which no one can spare us.
Marcel Proust

W e are in the throes of a resurgence of interest in the phenomenon of wisdom, long

seen as the means and end to living the good life (Baltes & Staudinger, 2000). From
researchers (Staudinger & Gluck, 2011; Wisdomresearch.org) to clinicians (Fowers, 2001),
we are seeing renewed focus on understanding this pinnacle of human development and
functioning. Perhaps in light of the social and political disillusionment of recent decades,
such renewed interest signals a larger need for reflection regarding what it is, after all,
that makes life most worth living.
The field of psychology in general, and couple and family therapy in particular, has
reflected this interest in its shift from pathology-driven paradigms to strength-based
approaches. Qualities such as honesty, courage, generosity, forgiveness, and other charac-
ter strengths not only have a growing research base but the subspecialty of positive psy-
chology has developed to advance the understanding of these concepts (Csikszentmihalyi

*Chicago Center for Family Health, Chicago, IL.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Karen Skerrett, Chicago Center for
Family Health, 20 N. Wacker Dr., suite 1442. Chicago, IL, 60606. E-mail: karen.skerrett@gmail.com

48
Family Process, Vol. 55, No. 1, 2016 2015 Family Process Institute
doi: 10.1111/famp.12162
SKERRETT / 49
& Seligman, 2000). A rich literature is evolving that is dedicated to uncovering
growth-promoting, life-affirming processes as well as to identifying resilient qualities that
may be exclusive to the couple relationship (Skerrett & Fergus, in press).
While there is healthy debate around what constitutes the good life and certainly the
good relationship, there is a basic consensus that definitions differ across historical time
and culture. As our work as therapists is centrally concerned with helping people better
manage the complexities of contemporary life, it is intriguing to consider the ways in
which the ancient virtue of wisdom can be used to inform our work in meaningful ways.
Cognitive and particularly developmental psychology have made empirical contributions
designed to broaden our conceptualization of the wisdom domain (Baltes & Staudinger,
2000; Kramer, 2000; Meeks & Jeste, 2009). However, the relational dimension has
received considerably less attention and, as typified by the above quote, wisdom is typi-
cally portrayed as a solitary endeavor.
This article integrates previous work on resilience and positive functioning in commit-
ted partners and examines the possible role of wisdom for the therapeutic task of co-pilot-
ing partners on their journey toward health and healing. The ability to connect individual
concerns to relational consequences, approach life challenges from a team or we perspec-
tive, and hold a larger purpose for and beyond the relationship is conceptualized as rela-
tional wisdom. Through a case illustration, relational wisdom will be described and
proposed as a master, albeit optional, virtue of relationship functioning. Implications for
clinical practice will include the particular ways in which therapists can guide couples to
develop their unique wisdom through making and telling we-stories.

APPROACHES TO WISDOM
Wisdom, long viewed as the culmination of full human development, has played a
key role in the attempt to understand the positive nature of human behavior since the
time of Aristotle. Often considered an abstract, ethereal term, Schwartz and Sharpe
(2010) point out that Aristotle actually considered wisdom to be the most practical of
values. Aristotle believed that our social practices constantly demand choices, such as
how to be fair, how to take a risk, how to determine a course of action, and that mak-
ing the best choice demands wisdom. Helping clients identify, examine possible courses
of action and related feelings is often the work of psychotherapists. Since the 1970s, we
have had empirical research to help us tackle this elusive concept (Clayton, 1975) but
applications to the practice of psychotherapy, particularly couple treatment, continue to
be daunting.
Since the beginnings of wisdom research, the most central area of investigation has
been the search for what wisdom is, guided particularly by an analysis of folk conceptions
and their rich cultural history. As there are no easily retrievable answers to what is
right and wrong, criteria indicative of wisdom are by definition consensual, as opposed
to objective (Staudinger, 1996), and require balancing individual needs with that of the
community.
Perhaps surprisingly, there is high consensus among people in Western and Eastern
societies about the central components of such subjective conceptions of wisdom (Stau-
dinger & Gluck, 2011). Wisdom is conceived to be the perfect integration of mind and char-
acter for the greater good. In philosophical analysis of Eastern and Western wisdom
literatures, self-transcendence was identified as a largely universal feature of wisdom.
(Curnow, 1999). However, it is important to emphasize that there remains inter-individ-
ual variability in how the various components are weighted in various cultures.
In their review of psychological wisdom research, Staudinger and Gluck (2011) make
the important observation that the increase in competence that may result from

Fam. Proc., Vol. 55, March, 2016

50 / FAMILY PROCESS

experience cannot necessarily be equated with an increase in wisdom. They suggest a

distinction be drawn between two types of positive adult development: (1) an increase in
adjustment and (2) an increase in growth (Staudinger & Kessler, 2009; Staudinger &
Kunzmann, 2005). This is an important distinction for therapists to appreciate as a high
level of adjustment, certainly positive and adaptive, is not sufficient to be labeled as wis-
dom. They clarify that the phenomenon be reserved for the capacity to master the basic
dialectics of human existence: between good and bad, positivity and negativity, knowing
and not knowing, strength and weakness, certainty and doubt, selfishness and altruism.
Wisdom is the ability to embrace and hold the tension within such contradictions, reflect
upon and draw insights from them. Wisdom resists automatic thinking and seeks to
understand ambiguity and grasp deeper meanings. It involves the individual capacity to
integrate three facets: cognitive (deep and broad insight), emotional (tolerance of ambigu-
ity, empathy and compassion), and motivational (an orientation that transcends self-inter-
est; Ardelt, 2003; Staudinger & Kessler, 2009). A wise person is one who desires to deeply
understand, who is aware of the limitations of knowing, who can see things from many
perspectives, and who demonstrates some compassion. Theoretically, having more per-
sonal experience in managing the tension of contradictions and cultivating the ability to
draw insight and learn from experience may result in personal growth. A compelling
reminder to us as therapists is to clarify what our clients are interested in achieving in
our work. For example, do they want help in making a smoother adjustment to job con-
flicts or greater insight into the repetitive patterns causing the conflict in the first place?
Clearly not everyone signs on for greater wisdom as a goal for psychotherapy. Wisdom is
always a possible outcome when for example, we sit with a couple pondering the decision
for fetal reduction in a high risk pregnancy, listen to a partner who has grown out of love
and worries about the message that divorce would send to his children, or a newly sober
partner struggling to learn to connect to her distant, angry spouse. Decisions may be made
and new behaviors executed in each of the above situations, but wisdom is not an auto-
matic or guaranteed outcome. Situating the achievement of wisdom within the domain of
personal growth helps us frame wisdom as an optional task of human development, even
thought by some to be a rare occurrence (Kramer, 2000).
Staudinger and Gluck (2011) offer a further distinction between general wisdom-exper-
tise in the fundamental pragmatics of life and personal wisdom which is most akin to per-
sonal growth. There is obvious overlap, as Bangen, Meeks, and Jeste (2013) point out. In
their investigation of empirical definitions and the most common subcomponents, they cite
knowledge of life, prosocial values, self-understanding, acknowledgment of uncertainly,
emotional balance, and the traits of tolerance, openness, humor, and spirituality. Ryff was
an early advocate of the attainment of well-being through personal growth (Ryff & Singer,
2006). Her scales of personal growth and purpose in life have been found to be among the
strongest correlates of personal and general wisdom-related performance (Gluck & Baltes,
2006; Mickler & Staudinger, 2008).
Students, whether of literature, religious, or scientific fields, usually are interested
in the attainment of wisdomhow can one become wise and what difference might it
make in our lives? Psychotherapy, the art of promoting change and, in some cases,
enhancing personal growth, may be thought of as a wisdom incubator. Clients come to
us in distress, expecting some expertise that will guide them to a better place. This
may be a particularly appropriate time to examine the ways in which we help couples
given the changing demographics of family life as well as the practice of psychother-
apy. Within the last 40 years, marriage and family life has been destabilized by two
significant forces: progress toward equality between men and women and the growth
of economic inequality and insecurity. These trends have changed the risks, rules, and
rewards of marriage (Coontz, 2014). New options have evolved for the establishment

www.FamilyProcess.org
SKERRETT / 51
of mutually exclusive and enduring dyadic relationships, or pair-bonding (Pinsoff,
2002). These alternatives include but are not limited to cohabitation and nonmarried
co-parenting. The many alternatives to marriage, coupled with greater expectations
for mutuality and equality, have resulted in the institution of marriage being more
intimate, fairer, and less violent but also have made it less likely that individuals will
stay in unsatisfactory marriages (Coontz, 2006). Individuals are increasingly pairing
off along class and education lines and in general, African Americans have experi-
enced the same trends as White and Hispanic North Americans but only more so
(Coontz, 2014). Finkel (2014) argues that todays average marriage is weaker than the
average marriage of yore, in terms of satisfaction and divorce rates, but that the best
marriages are much stronger. In describing the evolution from the companionate to
the self-expressive marriage, he claims Americans have gradually elevated their expec-
tations of marriage. The expectation that marriage will contribute to ones personal
growth has resulted in unprecedentedly high levels of marital quality. Finkels caveat
is that such high quality is only possible for those able to invest a great deal of time
and energy to the endeavor. Time has become the precious commodity of the well-off,
contributing to the oft quoted observation that marriage is becoming a choice of the
well-educated. More time is also precisely what most practicing therapists do not have,
pressured by economic and other marketplace demands to do more and more with less
and less. If the components of a good marriage have become more elevated, the com-
ponents of a good relationship may be even more fluid. As one couple recently put
it: as a gay unmarried 50 year old African American living with a 28 year old trans-
gendered Hispanic with two children, our relationship looks nothing like our parents
were making it up as we go along. In these dynamic times, it behooves us to help
all of our couples articulate their collective perception of a good enough relationship
and orient them to what has to change to achieve it. This cannot be done without
clearly framing the notion of committed partnerships within a historical, cultural, and
economic context. The bulk of the research and clinical work on which this article is
based represent relationships that are predicated on a love-based commitment to a
lifelong, often monogamous partnership. It is acknowledged that some long-term, inti-
mate partnerships also entail sexual agreements where it is normative and acceptable
for partners to engage in sexual relations with others outside of the relationship. Such
relationships still fall within the scope of this work because there remains an inten-
tional commitment to a particular other as the primary attachment and love figure. It
reflects a Western civilization perspective, essentially North American and Euro-Amer-
ican and Euro-Canadian. It is premature to attempt to apply these ideas to any cul-
tures beyond that of this perspective.
Particularly because as therapists, we understand wisdom in the context of a lifeand
devote ourselves to understanding the unique qualities of our clients, we ask what it is
that makes them most who they are and how we can help their journey toward change.
How then, do we approach such a worthy goal?

RESILIENCE, WISDOM, AND POSITIVE FUNCTIONING IN COMMITTED

PARTNERSHIPS
Resilience is often linked, conceptually and pragmatically, with the attainment of wis-
dom. Decades of work have examined resiliencethe ability to transform challenge and
adversity into adaptive outcomes (Luthar, 2006). Certainly wisdom involves a challenge
but adversity is just as likely to result in anger and paralysis as it is to trigger reflection,
produce understanding, a broader perspective, and the other ingredients of wisdom.
Adversity plus the individual capacities to use the difficult experience in a positive way is

Fam. Proc., Vol. 55, March, 2016

SKERRETT / 55
My re-enlistments have been a big thing between us; I never felt like she got why I did it or how
much I was trying to keep our family afloat. It got to where we couldnt even talk about the Army
she just had such an attitude. Then one day she came out wearing my dog-tags that Id given
her when we first started going out. It was the first thing I gave her that showed I was getting
serious about her. The fact that she wore them again made me feel like she still cared. Now its
like a symbol between usshes gone back to wearing them a lot and we both smile because we
remember what it means. (Singer & Skerrett, 2014)
Ultimately, the We is a statement of meaning about the relationship and about each
partners life trajectory. Individuals who have grasped the we see themselves as engaged
in a lifelong projectthe building and sustaining of a structure that they have created
and that is unique in the world. During therapy, I encourage them to see their relation-
ship as belonging to them: They build its private language, rules, symbols, rituals, and
meaning systems using their own style and creativity; they are in charge of altering it as
their needs and life experiences dictate. From the point of first contact, I begin to promote
both a relational consciousness and the necessity to make conscious, intentional choices
about their relationship. By agreeing to therapy, they are taking a courageous step to do
something they know may not turn out the way they want yet they are opening them-
selves up to the possibility for developing relational wisdom.
The case below is offered to highlight ways in which aspects of relational wisdom can be
cultivated and used as a resource in couple therapy. Sample exercises that can be used to
elicit we-stories are described in a supplement to this article. See Appendix.

THE STORY OF TWO CRUSADERS

Elise and Tom sought couples treatment as old veterans, having done three rounds with
other therapists over the course of their 41-year marriage. Elise, fit and striking at 61,
described her background as multicultural . . . a mix of Cuban, Black & Bolivian. Tom,
62, tall and ruddy faced, came from a long Scotch-Irish lineage he considered very tradi-
tional. They met at a peace rally, felt instantly attracted, and moved in together after 4
months. While they expected that their background of 60s progressiveness would be a
plus, they described their mixed marriage as fraught with intolerance and discrimina-
tion from inside and outside their families. Elise had faced considerable opposition from
her parents in marrying Tom. Her parents had worked tirelessly as farmers in Nigeria,
then Bolivia, and upon emigrating to the United States applied the discipline to running a
series of small but successful restaurants in New York City. They were very proud and
never able to accept Elises attraction to a White man. Tom traced his familys reluctance
to embrace Elise as a reflection of their conservative values and narrow mindsets. Part
of the magnetic attraction between Elise and Tom came from their desire to forge a more
inclusive path than the one outlined by their parents. Initially their mutual resistance
was the fuel that powered their relational engine and they rather quickly embraced an
identity as crusaders.
Having faced ongoing challenges over the years, by the time they arrived at my office,
they were questioning if they had finally run out of steam and lacked the energy, motiva-
tion, and inspiration to go on together. Raising their three children to fight the good
fight, they both agreed that their spark began to dull as the kids left home. They were
leading increasingly separate lives and felt disconnected from one another. The catalyst
for coming to treatment was a recent conversation in which Tom revealed he was feeling
attracted to a colleague at work. This followed earlier infidelities that Elise believed they
had worked through and healed. I will share stories from the early, middle, and final
stages of their complex treatment that spanned a 3-year period to illustrate several key
components of and growth in relational wisdom.

Fam. Proc., Vol. 55, March, 2016

SKERRETT / 57
on the other and the relationship. Tom commented, Im ashamed that I actually told
myself you didnt care what I did, that you didnt need anything from me. Over time, he
began to take responsibility for his tendency to turn away from Elise rather than bring his
neediness to her and into the relationship. They and we had numerous conversations
about the meaning of monogamy for themthen and nowand they courageously worked
to identify and express their honest values. We also regularly established linkages
between the consequences of individual actions for the relationship in areas beyond fidel-
ity. For example, Elise had developed a habit of making spontaneous visits to their chil-
dren without including Tom. He felt hurt and punished but did not feel he had the
right to complain or ask to be included. They needed guidance to see how Elises habit
was undermining their goal of greater connection and contributing to a relationship
defined by mistrust and disrespect. Our ability to explore the space in which individual
desires intersected to threaten the integrity of the relationship laid the foundation for the
re-establishment of empathy, acceptance, respect, and shared meaningall vital compo-
nents of we-ness.
This is a very delicate time in therapy as I can never predict how the introduction of
new information into relational awareness will be responded to by each partner. Listening
for and then reflecting back any evidence of positive intent, complex motivation, and posi-
tive affect promotes the possibility that the broader perspective intrinsic to relational wis-
dom may develop. Certainly it is possible for one partner to stay in their stuck-story and
for the other to shift to new understandings and behavior. But hopefully, the emphasis on
each partner having as broad a platform of information as possible will nourish decision
making whatever the outcome.
Here is the story they crafted midway through treatment: Pass the Baton
In our early activist years together, we used to talk about carrying the baton (our mission) to our
different rallies. At some point, someone gave us an actual baton and wed bring that along. When
the kids were growing up and wed all be talking at once, grabbing for airtime, out would come
the baton and wed use it to help us take turns talking. That was such an energetic, spirited time
where we laughed a lot as we handed the baton around the table. Then the thing got lost somehow
and believe it or not, we found it buried in an old suitcase just recently. I thought about throwing
it away. We talked a long time about the meaning of finding that thing now as were trying to
recover our spirit and see if we have a purpose together.
Their story has now shifted to a we-story as evidenced by the appearance of accep-
tance, pleasure, humor, and greater shared meaning. Sharing the story with me had
the effect of triggering many positive emotions and powerful reminiscences about their
collective power. This resulted in a shift in our work from deconstructing and forgiving
the infidelities to building a larger, more flexible context for a different relationship.
Each began to take greater responsibility for the withholding, resentments, and with-
drawal that had characterized their interaction and started to question what might be
possible if they reinhabited their individual passion and brought it to the relationship.
They were no closer to a decision about the future of the marriage but they had recov-
ered positive memories and a symbol that served as a metaphor for our future work.
What proved important at this point was to intensify my efforts to see goodness in rela-
tional intentions and reflect that back to them. For example, Tom had developed a
habit of not asking Elise questions he did not want to hear the answers to. She repeat-
edly remarked that his cowardice made it more difficult for her to trust him and she
expressed frustration at his lacking or off the mark efforts. Elise required help to
understand that Toms behavior was a fear driven response rooted in early trauma and
gradually learned to support all of his change efforts, not just the successful ones. Both
became clearer on the why and how of Toms temptations to stray and the more he was
willing to talk to her about them, the more trusting she felt. Over time, she expanded

Fam. Proc., Vol. 55, March, 2016

58 / FAMILY PROCESS

her perception of Tom as someone who was capable of loving her and behaving in
thoughtless, self-absorbed ways. That simultaneously expanded her conception of her-
self as someone who could set limits and be compassionate and forgiving. It was also
useful to step up coaching in techniques of positive savoring (Hurley & Kwon, 2013;
Quoidbach, Berry, & Hansenne & Mikolajczak, 2010). This involved teaching them to
generate, prolong, or intensify the positive emotions experienced during sessions. After
becoming familiar with the technique in sessions, they were given homework in which
they did the same with positive events that they shared.
The following story was offered at the close of treatment: A New Baton
We realized that while the early individual passion was great, it was just thatindividual. We
shared politics and rallies but now we know that what was missing was an USa commitment
that was about us but bigger than us. We fooled ourselves by thinking that we had a cause. Our
cause was advancing our own personal agendas & being the top dog in & out of the relationship.
The time we spend together now is so different. We dont approach the other looking to score
points or win the argumentwere more able to drop that in favor of really listening and trying to
be there for each other. I think thats what helped the trust rebuild more than anything. Our mar-
riage has a different kind of security now. We actually went out and bought a big baton and hung
it in the living room. It had to be big enough for both of us!
Apparent now are the uses of we as a reference point and the prevalence of SER-
APHS elements. They hung in together through long periods of instability, reducing
their belief that there was one right answer and started asking what is the right thing
for this moment? They collectively recrafted the meaning of the baton metaphor, a good
example of resilient reintegrations. The separate baton, worn down yet connected to
indelible memories, became ours. The strength and limitations of each partner had to
become conscious, grappled with, witnessed, and reconfigured into a relational vision
that could nourish expansive possibilities. They learned that to really see the pain of
the other required an act of the imaginationa willingness to think or feel oneself into
the interior of the others experience. They could now be fuller selves through the rela-
tionship. Instead of passing the baton back and forth or tossing it out or any one of
many possible solutions, they chose one that would be large enough to fuel two spirited
selves.

GIVING THE WE AWAY

As social activists, Elise and Tom were easy sells to the idea that shifting to a we-con-
sciousness has to be about more than their private psychological worlds or the small
domestic arena of their home. Virtually all definitions of wisdom share the understanding
that a life worth living is a life that is lived for something larger than the self.
Elise and Tom took many of the steps I suggest couples take to cultivate we-ness and
enable it to expand beyond themselves (Singer & Skerrett, 2014). They intentionally cre-
ated Us nightsvolunteering at local soup kitchens, speaking together at political ral-
lies, teaching younger people how to become involved in the political processalways
making a point to bring their new baton along. While they did many of the same activities
they had done in the past, both described doing them in new ways. The competitiveness
was gone, replaced by a deeper understanding, appreciation, and respect for the unique
talents each brought to the mission. At the close of treatment, they wrote up their vision of
what their we is for and committed to regular updates.
They also took the risky step of sharing the process of their decision to recommit to their
marriage with their adult children. Telling and witnessing the stories of moments when
connections were found across the gap of individual concerns and societal pressures
was humbling and inspiring. Their children commented that hearing the stories of their

www.FamilyProcess.org
60 / FAMILY PROCESS

Luthar, S. (2006) Resilience in development: A synthesis of research across 5 decades. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen
(Eds.), Developmental psychopathology (pp. 739795). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Meeks, T., & Jeste, D. (2009). The neurobiology of wisdom: A literature overview. Archives of General Psychiatry,
66(4), 355365.
Mickler, C., & Staudinger, U. (2008). Personal wisdom: Validation and age-related differences of a performance
measure. Psychological Aging, 23, 787799.
Patterson, J. M. (2002). Integrating family resilience and family stress theory. Journal of Marriage and Family,
64, 349360.
Pinsoff, W. (2002). The death of Till death us do part: The transformation of pair-bonding in the 20th century.
Family Process, 41(2), 135215.
Randall, W. (2013). The importance of being ironic: Narrative openness and personal resilience in later life. Ger-
ontologist, 53(1), 916.
Richardson, G. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(3), 307
321.
Ryff, C., & Singer, B. (2006). Best news yet on the six-factor model of well-being. Social Science Research, 35,
11031119.
Schwartz, B., & Sharpe, K. (2010). Practical wisdom. New York: Riverhead Books.
Skerrett, K. (2003). Couple dialogues with illness: Expanding the we. Families, Systems and Health, 21(1), 69
80.
Skerrett, K. (2004). Moving toward we: Promise and peril. In W. Rosen & M. Walker (Eds.), How connections heal
(pp. 128149). New York: Guilford.
Skerrett, K. (2010). Good enough stories: Helping couples invest in one anothers growth. Family Process, 49(4),
503516.
Skerrett, K. (2013). Resilient relationships: Cultivating the healing potential of couple stories. In J. Jordan & J.
Carlson (Eds.), Creating connection: A relational cultural approach with couples (pp. 4560). New York:
Routledge.
Skerrett, K., & Fergus, K., Eds. (in press). Couple resilience across the lifespan: Emerging perspectives. New York:
Springer.
Staudinger, U. (1996). Wisdom and the social-interactive foundations of the mind. In P. Baltes & U. Staudinger
(Eds.), Interactive minds: Lifespan perspectives on the social foundation of cognition (pp. 276315). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Staudinger, U., & Gluck, J. (2011). Psychological wisdom research: Commonalities and differences in a growing
field. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 215241.
Staudinger, U., & Kessler, E. (2009). Adjustment and growth: Two trajectories of positive personality develop-
ment across adulthood. In M. Smith & N. DeFrates-Densch (Eds.), Handbook of research on adult learning
and development (pp. 241268). New York: Routledge.
Staudinger, U., & Kunzmann, U. (2005). Positive adult personality development: Adjustment and/or growth?
European Psychologist, 10, 320329.
Sternberg, R. (2005). Older but not wiser: The relationship between age and wisdom. Aging International, 30(1),
526.
Weingarten, K. (2013). The cruel radiance of what is: Helping couples live with chronic illness. Family Process,
52, 83101.
Williams-Baucom, K., Atkins, D., Sevier, M., Eldridge, K., & Christensen, A. (2010). You and I need to talk
about us: Linguistic patterns in marital interactions. Personal Relationships, 17(1), 4156.

APPENDIX

STORY-TELLING PROTOCOL
Each individual will be instructed to:
Tell me a story about your experience of your relationshipone that you think best
describes what it is like.
Each couple will then be instructed to:
Now work together to come up with a joint story of your relationshipone that you
agree best describes what it is like.

www.FamilyProcess.org
56 / FAMILY PROCESS

INDIVIDUAL STORIES
Elise
I always took a lot of pride in our marriage. I was so in love that I thought love could conquer
alltogether we could be this alternative to prejudice, no matter what they threw at me, Id be up
to it. Together we could take on the world! I just cant believe were back at this place. In a weird
way, I feel good that he was honest enough to tell me about the attraction but then Im like
really?? This is still an issue?? Maybe Im stupid, optimistic or a hopeless fixer but it never
occurred to me that life would be just too much to overcome.
Tom
I lived off that crusader identity for a long time. I thought it would be enough. I saw her as pretty
caught up in herself and the kids and the good part of what we wanted to do together took a back
seat. Those early years when I had to travel for work were really hard. I never knew how to get
back into family life when Id come home. We stopped talking, it was just business and the pas-
sionsexual and political just drained away. I feel committed to this family cause weve been
through a lot together but I just dont know that I want to keep working on things. I need easy
now.
Couple story: The Big Question
We care about each other as people but 40 years is a hell of a long time. Theres a lot of hurt and
apathy now, like weve given up on each other and dont have the inspiration to risk again. Obvi-
ously, we havent given up entirely or we wouldnt be here but why stay together if were so dissat-
isfied? It seems like an impossible decision with no right answer. Our kids are grown and doing
well, if we dont do it for each other anymore then why not cut our losses and quit??
As is frequently the case when partners initiate couple therapy, they tell individual sto-
ries that reflect self-absorption and personal distress. They care less about the other and
more about how to reduce their own pain. Tom and Elise had gotten into the habit of
spending little time together and the conversations they did have revolved around the
business of household organization. Having each write out and then read aloud their indi-
vidual stories to one another in session was eye opening for both. It served as the initial
realization of just how alone each had been feeling. Both the individual and couple stories
reveal uncertainty and disillusionmenteven the couple story had minimal connecting
references.
Sitting with them in the early sessions, the heaviness of their burden was palpable. As
is the case with couples in pain, their story was stuck. They needed to learn how to get out
of the old narrative that replayed in their heads and back into here and now, listening and
being open to possibility. They were two well intentioned people, wanting to do the right
thing for others and exhausted by years of being unable to discern what that meant for
themselves. They spoke eloquently of the mutual mission that had ignited their love and
fueled their lives but was now a distant spark. Elise believed Tom had been her partner in
trying to reignite the spark only to learn that he was still seeking sparks elsewhere. Being
honest and exposing their individual vulnerabilities to one another helped them experi-
ence the fullness of their uncertainty and provided me with the chance to assess their
capacities to sit in the tension and not rush to solution. As their therapist, I had to be will-
ing to hold their pain and ambivalence and guide them to use my wisdom as they began to
identify and develop their own.
During our early work, it was important for Tom to express his understanding of the
meaning of his past infidelities and the current temptations, all of which triggered strong
feelings of shame and guilt. Elise expressed her struggle to stay in my chair and listen
when the pain of his betrayal was so searing. It was very difficult for each of them to
become aware of the ways in which their self-absorption had contributed to a loss of focus

www.FamilyProcess.org
SKERRETT / 57
on the other and the relationship. Tom commented, Im ashamed that I actually told
myself you didnt care what I did, that you didnt need anything from me. Over time, he
began to take responsibility for his tendency to turn away from Elise rather than bring his
neediness to her and into the relationship. They and we had numerous conversations
about the meaning of monogamy for themthen and nowand they courageously worked
to identify and express their honest values. We also regularly established linkages
between the consequences of individual actions for the relationship in areas beyond fidel-
ity. For example, Elise had developed a habit of making spontaneous visits to their chil-
dren without including Tom. He felt hurt and punished but did not feel he had the
right to complain or ask to be included. They needed guidance to see how Elises habit
was undermining their goal of greater connection and contributing to a relationship
defined by mistrust and disrespect. Our ability to explore the space in which individual
desires intersected to threaten the integrity of the relationship laid the foundation for the
re-establishment of empathy, acceptance, respect, and shared meaningall vital compo-
nents of we-ness.
This is a very delicate time in therapy as I can never predict how the introduction of
new information into relational awareness will be responded to by each partner. Listening
for and then reflecting back any evidence of positive intent, complex motivation, and posi-
tive affect promotes the possibility that the broader perspective intrinsic to relational wis-
dom may develop. Certainly it is possible for one partner to stay in their stuck-story and
for the other to shift to new understandings and behavior. But hopefully, the emphasis on
each partner having as broad a platform of information as possible will nourish decision
making whatever the outcome.
Here is the story they crafted midway through treatment: Pass the Baton
In our early activist years together, we used to talk about carrying the baton (our mission) to our
different rallies. At some point, someone gave us an actual baton and wed bring that along. When
the kids were growing up and wed all be talking at once, grabbing for airtime, out would come
the baton and wed use it to help us take turns talking. That was such an energetic, spirited time
where we laughed a lot as we handed the baton around the table. Then the thing got lost somehow
and believe it or not, we found it buried in an old suitcase just recently. I thought about throwing
it away. We talked a long time about the meaning of finding that thing now as were trying to
recover our spirit and see if we have a purpose together.
Their story has now shifted to a we-story as evidenced by the appearance of accep-
tance, pleasure, humor, and greater shared meaning. Sharing the story with me had
the effect of triggering many positive emotions and powerful reminiscences about their
collective power. This resulted in a shift in our work from deconstructing and forgiving
the infidelities to building a larger, more flexible context for a different relationship.
Each began to take greater responsibility for the withholding, resentments, and with-
drawal that had characterized their interaction and started to question what might be
possible if they reinhabited their individual passion and brought it to the relationship.
They were no closer to a decision about the future of the marriage but they had recov-
ered positive memories and a symbol that served as a metaphor for our future work.
What proved important at this point was to intensify my efforts to see goodness in rela-
tional intentions and reflect that back to them. For example, Tom had developed a
habit of not asking Elise questions he did not want to hear the answers to. She repeat-
edly remarked that his cowardice made it more difficult for her to trust him and she
expressed frustration at his lacking or off the mark efforts. Elise required help to
understand that Toms behavior was a fear driven response rooted in early trauma and
gradually learned to support all of his change efforts, not just the successful ones. Both
became clearer on the why and how of Toms temptations to stray and the more he was
willing to talk to her about them, the more trusting she felt. Over time, she expanded

Fam. Proc., Vol. 55, March, 2016

58 / FAMILY PROCESS

her perception of Tom as someone who was capable of loving her and behaving in
thoughtless, self-absorbed ways. That simultaneously expanded her conception of her-
self as someone who could set limits and be compassionate and forgiving. It was also
useful to step up coaching in techniques of positive savoring (Hurley & Kwon, 2013;
Quoidbach, Berry, & Hansenne & Mikolajczak, 2010). This involved teaching them to
generate, prolong, or intensify the positive emotions experienced during sessions. After
becoming familiar with the technique in sessions, they were given homework in which
they did the same with positive events that they shared.
The following story was offered at the close of treatment: A New Baton
We realized that while the early individual passion was great, it was just thatindividual. We
shared politics and rallies but now we know that what was missing was an USa commitment
that was about us but bigger than us. We fooled ourselves by thinking that we had a cause. Our
cause was advancing our own personal agendas & being the top dog in & out of the relationship.
The time we spend together now is so different. We dont approach the other looking to score
points or win the argumentwere more able to drop that in favor of really listening and trying to
be there for each other. I think thats what helped the trust rebuild more than anything. Our mar-
riage has a different kind of security now. We actually went out and bought a big baton and hung
it in the living room. It had to be big enough for both of us!
Apparent now are the uses of we as a reference point and the prevalence of SER-
APHS elements. They hung in together through long periods of instability, reducing
their belief that there was one right answer and started asking what is the right thing
for this moment? They collectively recrafted the meaning of the baton metaphor, a good
example of resilient reintegrations. The separate baton, worn down yet connected to
indelible memories, became ours. The strength and limitations of each partner had to
become conscious, grappled with, witnessed, and reconfigured into a relational vision
that could nourish expansive possibilities. They learned that to really see the pain of
the other required an act of the imaginationa willingness to think or feel oneself into
the interior of the others experience. They could now be fuller selves through the rela-
tionship. Instead of passing the baton back and forth or tossing it out or any one of
many possible solutions, they chose one that would be large enough to fuel two spirited
selves.

GIVING THE WE AWAY

As social activists, Elise and Tom were easy sells to the idea that shifting to a we-con-
sciousness has to be about more than their private psychological worlds or the small
domestic arena of their home. Virtually all definitions of wisdom share the understanding
that a life worth living is a life that is lived for something larger than the self.
Elise and Tom took many of the steps I suggest couples take to cultivate we-ness and
enable it to expand beyond themselves (Singer & Skerrett, 2014). They intentionally cre-
ated Us nightsvolunteering at local soup kitchens, speaking together at political ral-
lies, teaching younger people how to become involved in the political processalways
making a point to bring their new baton along. While they did many of the same activities
they had done in the past, both described doing them in new ways. The competitiveness
was gone, replaced by a deeper understanding, appreciation, and respect for the unique
talents each brought to the mission. At the close of treatment, they wrote up their vision of
what their we is for and committed to regular updates.
They also took the risky step of sharing the process of their decision to recommit to their
marriage with their adult children. Telling and witnessing the stories of moments when
connections were found across the gap of individual concerns and societal pressures
was humbling and inspiring. Their children commented that hearing the stories of their

www.FamilyProcess.org
SKERRETT / 59
parents struggle gave them great reassurance and hope that they could forge a better life
for themselves and those they love.
At the close of our work together, Tom and Elise were more consistently able to connect
their individual concerns to relational consequences and more often able to approach life
challenges from a team perspective, qualifying them as demonstrating relational wisdom.
This was achieved primarily through the following practices: enhancing their self reflec-
tive capacities and attunement to self and other, helping them balance conflicting partner
aims, and coaching them to interpret behavior in light of the uniqueness of each situation.
Both used and learned from the experience. Appreciating relational wisdom for the
dynamic quality that it is, Tom and Elise know that it is a work in progress, something
that takes regular attention to nourish. Continuing to ask: what is best for us? helped
them transcend individual preoccupations and build a greater identification with the rela-
tionship.
Unfortunately, the passage of time alone will not confer wisdom (Sternberg, R. 2005).
As Tom and Elise illustrate, it requires openness to new experience and the active seeking
out of challenge. The ingredients essential to cultivate relational wisdom involve a collabo-
ration between therapist and couple, all of whom are invested in hard work, possess a will-
ingness to tolerate tension, explore vulnerabilities, and go beyond the confines of the
problem as it is presented. Like the revolutionaries they were, the struggle for relational
wisdom is a revolutionary act: Not everyone wants to hear about it and not everyone
wants to attempt it. As couple therapists, we stand for the work involved but also hold the
promise of actualizing that relational vision of a life well lived.

REFERENCES
Alea, N., & Bluck, S. (2007). Ill keep you in mind: The intimacy function of autobiographical memory. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 21, 10911111.
Alea, N., Singer, J., & Labunko, B. (2015). We-ness in relationship-defining memories and marital satisfaction.
In K. Skerrett & K. Fergus (Eds.) Couple resilience: Emerging perspectives. New York: Springer.
Alea, N., & Vick, S. C. (2010). The first sight of love: Relationship-defining memories and marital satisfaction
across adulthood. Memory, 18(7), 730742.
Ardelt, M. (2003). Development and empirical assessment of a three-dimensional wisdom scale. Research on
Aging, 25, 275324.
Baltes, P., & Staudinger, U. (2000). Wisdom: A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward
excellence. American Psychologist, 55(1), 122136.
Bangen, K., Meeks, T., & Jeste, D. (2013). Defining and assessing wisdom: A review of the literature. American
Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21(12), 12541266.
Blagov, P., & Singer, J. (2004). Four dimensions of self-defining memories (specificity, meaning, content and
affect) and their relationship to self-restraint, distress and repressive defensiveness. Journal of Personality,
72(3), 481511.
Clayton, V. P. (1975). Eriksons theory of human development as it applies to the aged: Wisdom as contradictory
cognition. Human Development, 18, 119128.
Connor, J., Robinson, B., & Wieling, E. (2008). Vulvar pain: A phenomenological study of couples in search of
effective diagnosis and treatment. Family Process, 47(2), 139155.
Coontz, S. (2006). Marriage, a history: How love conquered marriage. New York: Viking Press.
Coontz, S. (2014). The new instability. Retrieved from www. NYTimes.
Curnow, T. (1999). Wisdom, intuition and ethics. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Finkel, E. (2014). The suffocation of marriage: Climbing Mt. Maslow without enough oxygen. Retrieved from
www.NYTimes.
Fowers, B. (2001). The limits of a technical concept of a good marriage: Exploring the role of virtue in communica-
tion skills. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27(3), 327340.
Gluck, J., & Baltes, P. (2006). Using the concept of wisdom to enhance the expression of wisdom knowledge: Not
the philosophers dream but differential effects of developmental preparedness. Psychological Aging, 21, 679
690.
Kramer, D. (2000). Wisdom as a classical source of human strength: Conceptualization and empirical inquiry.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19(1), 83101.

Fam. Proc., Vol. 55, March, 2016

60 / FAMILY PROCESS

Luthar, S. (2006) Resilience in development: A synthesis of research across 5 decades. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen
(Eds.), Developmental psychopathology (pp. 739795). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Meeks, T., & Jeste, D. (2009). The neurobiology of wisdom: A literature overview. Archives of General Psychiatry,
66(4), 355365.
Mickler, C., & Staudinger, U. (2008). Personal wisdom: Validation and age-related differences of a performance
measure. Psychological Aging, 23, 787799.
Patterson, J. M. (2002). Integrating family resilience and family stress theory. Journal of Marriage and Family,
64, 349360.
Pinsoff, W. (2002). The death of Till death us do part: The transformation of pair-bonding in the 20th century.
Family Process, 41(2), 135215.
Randall, W. (2013). The importance of being ironic: Narrative openness and personal resilience in later life. Ger-
ontologist, 53(1), 916.
Richardson, G. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(3), 307
321.
Ryff, C., & Singer, B. (2006). Best news yet on the six-factor model of well-being. Social Science Research, 35,
11031119.
Schwartz, B., & Sharpe, K. (2010). Practical wisdom. New York: Riverhead Books.
Skerrett, K. (2003). Couple dialogues with illness: Expanding the we. Families, Systems and Health, 21(1), 69
80.
Skerrett, K. (2004). Moving toward we: Promise and peril. In W. Rosen & M. Walker (Eds.), How connections heal
(pp. 128149). New York: Guilford.
Skerrett, K. (2010). Good enough stories: Helping couples invest in one anothers growth. Family Process, 49(4),
503516.
Skerrett, K. (2013). Resilient relationships: Cultivating the healing potential of couple stories. In J. Jordan & J.
Carlson (Eds.), Creating connection: A relational cultural approach with couples (pp. 4560). New York:
Routledge.
Skerrett, K., & Fergus, K., Eds. (in press). Couple resilience across the lifespan: Emerging perspectives. New York:
Springer.
Staudinger, U. (1996). Wisdom and the social-interactive foundations of the mind. In P. Baltes & U. Staudinger
(Eds.), Interactive minds: Lifespan perspectives on the social foundation of cognition (pp. 276315). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Staudinger, U., & Gluck, J. (2011). Psychological wisdom research: Commonalities and differences in a growing
field. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 215241.
Staudinger, U., & Kessler, E. (2009). Adjustment and growth: Two trajectories of positive personality develop-
ment across adulthood. In M. Smith & N. DeFrates-Densch (Eds.), Handbook of research on adult learning
and development (pp. 241268). New York: Routledge.
Staudinger, U., & Kunzmann, U. (2005). Positive adult personality development: Adjustment and/or growth?
European Psychologist, 10, 320329.
Sternberg, R. (2005). Older but not wiser: The relationship between age and wisdom. Aging International, 30(1),
526.
Weingarten, K. (2013). The cruel radiance of what is: Helping couples live with chronic illness. Family Process,
52, 83101.
Williams-Baucom, K., Atkins, D., Sevier, M., Eldridge, K., & Christensen, A. (2010). You and I need to talk
about us: Linguistic patterns in marital interactions. Personal Relationships, 17(1), 4156.

APPENDIX

STORY-TELLING PROTOCOL
Each individual will be instructed to:
Tell me a story about your experience of your relationshipone that you think best
describes what it is like.
Each couple will then be instructed to:
Now work together to come up with a joint story of your relationshipone that you
agree best describes what it is like.

www.FamilyProcess.org
SKERRETT / 61
THE WE-STORY EXERCISE
Please recall a particular memory of a special time in your relationship. This memory is
called a we-story and is an account of an event or sequence of events in your relationship
that serves as a reminder of your mutual love and commitment to each other and the rela-
tionship. It can be a moment of romance, a challenge that you faced together, or any expe-
rience that expressed strong connection and/or compassion between the two of you. It
should be a story that is familiar to both of you and one that you have shared with each
other over the years. The story might be thought of as a touchstone and symbol of the bond
that you hold with each other.
Once you have selected the memory, please write it down. It does not have to be in great
length, but please try for at least 150 words and please do the exercise together.

Fam. Proc., Vol. 55, March, 2016