forget Ritual The Patterns of Spouse Murder The Goal of Fight Training The Epidemic of Domestic Violence

4. THE "NICE" PSYCHOTHERAPIST 50

The Therapist as a Symbol The Discharge of Emotions Fight with Your Therapist The Z'process The Aggressive Confrontation Approach The Therapist as Indirect Aggressor The Therapist is Not Your Social Friend The Therapist as Victim Sex Between Therapist and Patient How to Choose and Evaluate Your Psychotherapist

5. THE **NICE" CRAZYMAKERS 69

The Crazymaking Mother The Crazymaking Father The Crazymaking Employer The Socially Approved Image

PART TWO

THE NOT SO **NICE'» SOCIETY

6. THE TERRORIZABLE SOCIETY 79 Is it Paranoid to Be ''Paranoid"? Our Puritanical, Naive Attitudes Aggression Outlets A Definition of Aggression An Aggression Training Program

7. THE **NICE" KILLERS 88 Duane Pope: Murder in the Bank Charles Whitman: Sniper on the Texas Tower Mark James Robert Essex: Terror in New Orleans Juan Corona: Yuba City Murders Charles "Tex" Watson: Manson's Executioner Leo Held: Pennsylvania's Killer of Six The Lessons to Be Learned A Proposal for Prevention

8. THE HTODEN AGGRESSORS AT HOME 100 AND AT WORK

The Masks of Hostility Collusion Collusion Insurance The "Sickness Tyrants" Insurance Against "Sickness Tyrants'* The Passive Aggressors Insurance Against Passive Aggressors The "Red Cross Nurse" Syndrome Insurance Against the "Red Cross Nurse" Moral One-upmanship Defending Against the "Moralist" The Intellectualizers Combating the Intellectualizer The Nonrewarder Defending Against the Nonrewarder The Doubter Defusing the Doubter The Helpless Aggressor Helpless Insurance

9. DANCES AROUND THE BEAST 124

The "Spectator Dance" The "Religious Dance" The "Police Dance" The "Sporting Dance" The "War Danced* The "Pacifist Dance" The "Scientific Research Danced' Dancing with the Beast

10. LIKE SEX: SUPPRESSED, REPRESSED, 137 AND TABOOED

11. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL HAZARDS OF 141 MISMANAGED AGGRESSION

Depression Anger Helps Realizing Self-hate Catatonic Schizophrenia The Prevalent Psychological Problems Six Emotionally Destructive Attitudes

PART THREE

HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCnVELY WITH AGGRESSION

Rituals for Release of Aggression The "Vesuvius'* The '^Virginia Woolf* The "Haircuf With *'Doghouse Release" The Bataca Fight Bataca Lashing The "Slave Market" "A ttraction-reservation" Self-reproach "Persistence-resistance^* "Hurt Museums'* "Beltline Sharing" "Insult Clubs" Adapt Your Own Rituals

13. THE AGGRESSIVE BODY 181

The Causes of Psychosomatic Diseases The Asthmatic: A Hidden Protester The "Headache Personality" The Hypertensive Person The Arthritic Hidden Aggression and Cancer Collusion During Illness The Hidden Uses of Illness The Questions One Should Ask The Aggressive Language of the Body Yawning Farting Itching Avoidance of Eye Contact Blushing Paling Nausea and Vomiting Impotence and Frigidity

14. FUSION: AGGRESSION IN THE SERVICE 202 OF EROS

Fight for Better Sex The Inhibiting Sensitivity The Pic-bone: A Ritual for "Nice" Couples

15. SEXUAL LIBERATION THROUGH 210 COMPASSIONATE AGGRESSION

The "Gender Club" Hostility Ritual Sex as a Weapon Intersex Fears "Cold Turkey" Sex The Need for Candor Postcoital Discussions The Sexual Crazymakers

16. INTIMACY THROUGH CONFLICT 224 Optimal Distance — "How Much Closeness?"

zil

Centricity Struggles — "Who's the Most Important Person in Your Life?" Power-struggles — "Who's on Top?" Trust Formation — "How Can I Be Sure?" Preservation of Self — "I've Got to Be Me!" Social Boundaries — "Whom Should We Invite?" Romantic Illusions — "Are You the Person I Married?"

17. STOP! YOU ARE DRIVING ME CRAZYll! 236 The Double Bind Coping with the Double Binder The Mind Rape Combating the Mind Raper The Guiltmakers Defense Against Guiltmakers Nonengagement: Crazymaking by Emotional Withdrawal Confronting the Nonengager "Thinging" Prevention of "Thinging" Mystification Demystifying the Mystifier Crisismaking Controlling the Crisismaker Closure Block or Derailing Blocking the Closure Block The Occasional Reinforcer Obstructing the Occasional Reinforcer Some General Guidelines

18. THE FAMILY POWWOW: AN AGGRESSION 261 FESTIVAL

The Price of Suppressing Open Aggression The Family Powwow Phase I: Aggression Exercises for Families The Slave Market Learning from Refection Role Switching Pushing Daddy or Mommy Against the Wall Feedback Training Persistence-resistance Phase II: Family Rituals The "Vesuvius'* The "Virginia Woolf The "Haircut* with "Doghouse Release" "Museum Tour^* Bataca Fighting The Bataca Lashing Phase III: The "Fair Fight for Change"

19. ENEMIES AT WORK: THE MANAGEMENT 284 OF OFFICE AGGRESSION

The American Caste System With Fear and

ziU

Trembling The Destructive Kindness The Employee Who Can't Say "No" The "Nice" Executive and the Hatchet Man (Not So Strange Bedfellows) The Persistence-resistance Exercise There Is No Magic Key Solution Airing the Hostilities Humilating the Employee The Group "Mind Rape^' of an Employer The Employer^ Options The Creative Executive

20. OFFICE FIGHTS FOR CHANGE 304 The Fair Fight Techniques The Nine Steps in a Fair Fight Evaluation of the Fight A Sample Fight

21. THE FIGHT FOR GROWTH 319

Risk vs. Security Experience vs. Analysis Reaching Out vs. Holding Back Self-disclosure vs. Self-secrecy Living By One's Own Rhythm vs. Clinging to Authority

REFERENCES 328

INDEX 334

PART ONE

The ^^Nice^Teople

CHAPTER 1

The Myth of the ^'Niee" Guy

Joe Michaels was a "nice" guy. People took a liking to him right away because he always had a ready smile and something pleasant to say. Friends could almost always get him to do what they wanted, because, as he'd say, "I can enjoy almost anything." Nobody ever heard Joe get nasty, argue, or even disagree very vigorously; as he put it, being negative wasn't his style.

When his friends heard that Joe's wife, Nina, had a nervous breakdown, they were shocked. It was only then that they found out she'd been seeing a psychotherapist for the previous seven months.

During her therapy Nina had trouble defining what was wrong with her marriage. She felt guilty as hell, because everyone told her how lucky she was to be married to such a "nice" guy. And, yet, she knew the relationship was driving her up a wall. Her husband, Joe, was so placid and even-tempered that whenever there was trouble she felt it was her fault For example, she yelled at the kids because Joe wouldn't. After a while she began to feel like a "bitch on wheels." The kids would insult her, and run to Joe for protection. He'd usually take their side. Their eighteen-

2 THE "NICE" PEOPLE

year-old son, Michael, was doing poorly in school. He had no direction. He either sat around listening to records or went out riding on his motorcycle. Joe never said much about it, and so Nina wound up having to stay on Michael's back. After some more months in therapy, Nina began to realize that the only way she could maintain her sanity was to get a divorce. A number of friends advised against it, and blamed her for expecting too much. But when she asked them to help her understand Joe better, they admitted that they didn't know too much about him, except that he was a real "nice" guy.

Nina confronted Joe about a divorce, but he didn't even seem to care very much, and he hardly reacted when he was served with the papers. Shortly after the divorce Joe remarried, and almost never came over to see the children. His new wife didn't want him to, he said. The children became withdrawn and sullen.

THE *^iVfCE" AMERICANS

Mysterious? No. The "nice" guy is as American as jazz, apple pie, and baseball. He is well liked just because his major concern seems to be being liked by everybody. More than anything else, he reflects the typical American fear of aggressive interaction in a personal relationship. He is by no means a pacifist or a coward. It is only in personal relationships that he fears being aggressive. He may have no hesitation about killing in a war situation, for example.

The "nice" guy is very preoccupied with his image, and part of that image involves being a friendly, well-hked person. His behavior, however, is primarily a way of manipulating people and situations. In this way he avoids strong emotional encounters, which he dislikes. Nor will he have to worry whether others are saying bad things about him.

Behind his "niceness'* he is well guarded. He permits few, if any, including his family, to come close enough to really get to know him. His "nice" guy behavior is a path of least resistance because it requires minimal emotional involvement and interpersonal commitment. His "niceness" is also an indirectly aggressive manipulation. It is impersonal, and designed to get him ahead. He is liked by others not because they know him well, but because he does not

THE MYTH OF THE **NICE»' GUY 3

threaten their own aggression control systems by confronting them, asserting himself or getting openly angry.

There are may variations of the "nice" guy. Among those that will be discussed here are the "nice" monamy, the "nice" daddy, the "nice** children, the "nice" parents, the "nice" boss, the "nice" employees, the "nice" teacher, the "nice" students, the "nice" therapist, the "nice" patients, the 'nice" sport, the "nice" traveling companions, and the "nice" lovers.

Each of these will be described as types. Undoubtedly no one person embodies all the characteristics in any of these types. However, there are many characteristics common to all of them. That is, the aggression is present and powerful, but is always disguised and indirect, and, therefore, does not seem to be aggression. In fact, to casual observers "nice" behavior appears to be highly appropriate, virtuous, and even loving. Only through its impact on others do we see its aggressive meanings. The "nice" person is especially destractive emotionally, because his impact is so elusive and indirect. Being aware of him, and understanding him for what he is, is therefore particularly important in developing a knowledge of what aggression is really about.

Each type will be described in terms of the outward behavior, the personality underneath that behavior, the "reward," or what the person gains from the behavior, and the "price," meaning its damaging effects.

THE ^^iVICE" MOMMY

The "nice" monmay does everything for everybody in the family, and rarely asks for anything in return. She works herself "to the bone," even when she's feeling sick, which is fairly often. The house is kept immaculately clean and there is always a favorite goodie cooking on the stove or sitting in the refrigerator. The "nice" mommy worries a lot about everybody: whether they've eaten enough, are at home on time, or are dressed properly. She rarely buys clothing, because she doesn't like to spend money on herself. She is a good listener, particularly to tales of woe and misfortune.

Every once in a while, more frequently as the children grow older, the "nice" mommy goes into vicious outbursts. She screams, threatens, caUs people ungrateful, and makes everybody feel guilty. There's no talking to her during

4 THE "NICE** PEOPLE

these rages. But afterward she cahns down and becomes **iiice" again. As her children grow older, and the prospect of their leaving home arises, the *'mce" mommy often acts as if she may be on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

THE PERSONALITY UNDERNEATH The "nice" mommy comes from a strict, moralistic background, where as a child she was told to be seen but not heard. When she became openly angry she was immediately punished for being disrespectful She was brought up to believe that being a wife and mother were the most important things she could do, and that "good" women always loved their husbands and their children. She wasn't allowed to develop a mind of her own, or to live independently. She married fairly young, and never really broke the ties with her parents. At marriage she was emotionally still a child.

Secretly, she envies her friends who broke away from family ties and experimented, sexually and with freer lifestyles. She feels deprived, and is inwardly very resentful of being a wife and mother. But she has a strong conscience, and would never fully admit this resentment to herself. To keep these feelings in control, and to prove to herself and to others what a good mother she really is, she works herself "to the bone." Every once in a while, however, her resentment comes pouring through. She says she overprotects her children because she cares so much, but the imderlying motive is more to control them, and prevent them from becoming too strong and free.

The "nice" mommy feels inadequate, because she was never allowed to develop her potentials. Therefore, she gets attention and importance through her illnesses, aches, and pains. She is unable to gain attention and importance directly, because she is afraid of being directly assertive and saying "I want" Instead, like a child, she expects to be given to.

THE REWARD The "nice" mommy is told by everybody what a fine person she is, and this reassures her somewhat. She rules the house, and basically everyone is afraid of her, because she makes them feel constantly in debt to her. By always doing things for others, particularly her children, she makes them dependent and keeps them under control. Family problems can always be blamed on somebody else, because her motives are so "pure." Her being so

THE MYTH OF THE "NICE" GUY 5

basy all the time is a permanent excuse for not having to be involved in outside social activities. These would frighten her, because she avoids situations where she is not in complete control.

THE PRICE The "nice** mommy is emotionally very de-itructive. She gives off confusing indirect messages of "I love you" and "I hate you." Every time her children show eigns of independence, she makes them feel selfish and guilty. After all, "nice" mommy is working so hard. How could anyone even think of abandoning her?

She is a powerful tyrant who skillfully utilizes indirect aggression. Her controlling tools are guilt, illness, and "morality.** Even daddy becomes merely a passive shadow who gives up, because there's no way of winning against "nice" mommy.

THE **2VICE'' DABBY

"Nice** daddy is a soft touch. He can always be persuaded to say "Yes** after mother has said "No." He never screams or yells, because, as he has said many times, all he wants is "peace." He finds it behind the newspaper, or in front of the television set. He lets mother do the disciplining of the children.

When the kids bring home bad grades from school, **nice" daddy says something like "Try harder,*' or "Don't show it to your mother." The kids feel sorry for him, because mother bosses him around. The only times they really get upset at "nice'* daddy is when he forgets one of their names, mixes up their names, or forgets how old they are.

THE PERSONALITY UNDERNEATH "Nice** daddy is passive and detached. He got married and had children because it was the thing socially acceptable men were supposed to do. But basically he is just going through the motions. "Nice" daddy is afraid of feelings, his own and those of others. He is also afraid of losing control. His own upbringing was repressive, and he was not permitted to raise his voice or talk back. He learned to control aggressive feelings by withdrawing. He becomes very threatened by angry feelings, because he doesn't know what to do with his own, and is afraid of what he might do if he let go. He

6 THE "NICE" PEOPLE

worries about what people think of him, even though he doesn't let anybody get very close.

THE REWARD The "nice" daddy can avoid taking responsibility for the things that go wrong in the family environment. He makes others seem to be the villains, because he is always so "nice," with his "live and let live" philosophy. He also spares himself considerable amounts of wear and tear, as he manages to stay above the fray. His style serves him well, particularly in terms of retaining his image of self-control, fairness, and "niceness."

THE PRICE "Nice" daddy expresses his aggression by not getting involved. He starves his wife emotionally. He forces her into the role of "bitch," and he comes out smelling like a rose. His lack of support when she disciplines the children undermines his wife's authority. By being "nice'* when the kids do poorly in school or misbehave, he indirectly demonstrates a lack of concern. He fails to provide his children motivation or standards to strive for. They learn that it doesn't really matter to him if they succeed or fail. This is particularly hurtful to his sons, because his shadowy, passive nature prevents them from making a strong masculine identification. His "even-tempered" behavior eventually becomes irritating and boring. It's really his indirectly aggressive way of saying to those around him, "You don't exist," and "I can't be bothered."

TBE ^^NICE^^ CHILDREN

Grownups love "nice" children because "nice" children are charming and eager to please, and they act so "adult." Grownups say they wish all children were that polite and weU-mannered. The "nice" child is also the teacher's pet, because he or she is so willing to help out, and never presents a discipline problem.

The only fly in the ointment is that "nice'* children don't get along with other children. Their peers see them as act-ing superior, and imtrustworthy because, as allies of the adults, they might tattle-tale. "Nice" children are also not much fun to be with, because they don't really enjoy peer group activities, which they consider boring.

THE PERSONALITY UNDERNEATH "Nice** children

THE MYTH OF THE **NICE'' GUY 7

are manipulators, who see being loved and accepted by all adults as most vital to their survival. Because their parents are status seekers who are more interested in having a perfect status symbol to show the world than in having a real child, "nice" children are always performing for them in order to get their love.

Basically, the "nice" child is a rejected child, treated like an object rather than a person. Tlie "niceness" does not stem from genuine warmth or caring but is instead a survival technique designed to please adults. The charm hides underlying feelings of resentment, rejection, and rage that the child feels at being manipulated into a status symbol, and of not being allowed to be a child.

THE REWARD "Nice" children receive compliments and attention from grownups. This allows them to feel superior to other children, and very special. Because of their "charm," adults give them things, and allow them to participate in adult activities in which other diildren would not ordinarily be permitted.

THE PRICE The "nice" child is a manipulator with little genuine human empathy. As an adult, he will be prone to using and discarding people very casually. Anger will be acted out behind a smile and a smooth manner, and many disappointed and hurt victims will be left behind. The "nice" child eventually becomes an alienated, lonely adult, unable to establish an involved, caring relationship.

THE 'Wf€«r» PARENTS

These good guys are "liberal" in attitude. They smoke pot with their kids, outfit their teenage daughter with a diaphragm, and identify themselves heavily with their children's activities and causes. They maintain a laissez-faire attitude toward their children's school performance. Discipline is always on a rational and reasonable basis, with an avoidance of any kind of fighting, loud voices, or "pulling rank." Their children's friends love to come over, because there's always food, pot, privacy, rock music, and "good vibes" while they're "doing their thing." The "nice" parents work hard at being liked and accepted by their children's friends.

8 THE "NICE- PEOPLE

THE PERSONALITY UNDERNEATH The "nice" parents are imagc-oriented. They need to see themselves as youthful, and so they unconsciously deny their age. and their role as parental guides and authorities. Their **let them blossom" attitude toward their children really represents a denial of their parent:iJ responsibilities, and their fear of being openly aggressive and assertive. They feel inadequate as adults and parents, and develop a "hip" approach to avoid commitment and responsibility.

THE REWARD The "nice" parents arc admired by their children's peers, who see them as "groovy." This allows these parents to feel special and youthful.

THE PRICE The rejection of their roles as adults and parents iilso implies a rejection of their children. In fact, they turn their children into parent figures for themselves. This creates an unreal sense of power and omnipotence in their children, that will ultimately result in a crisis when they have to live independently. At that point they will have grandiose feelings of being too special to work in one direction, or to be coniined within the limits of a job.

TBE ^NiCVT'' BOSS

Mr. Mike Andrews, the division manager of a large, successful eastern accounting firm, would certainly qualify as being a "nice" boss. He keeps a large caJendar on his wall on which he circles the birthdays of every employee in his otiice; from his top accoimtants to his secretaries and receptionists. He then sends tlowers. perfume or c;indy to the women, and sporting equipment, liquor, or smoking accessories to the men.

He gives two major parties each year to which every-bcxiy is invited. The Christmas party is for the employees only, without their spouses. At this party Mr. Andrews becomes "one of the boys." He gets happily dnmk, kisses the ladies in a friendly but "correct" manner, and keeps telling everybody to "have a biill." On Jidy fourth, he gives his annual btu^becue. This affair takes place at his home, where he plays the role of friendly host and master chef. Food is in abundance, and the liquor flows.

At work Mike Andrews keeps his otTice door open at all times, smiles, and says, "How're things going?" as people

THE M^TH OF THE *TS'1CE" GUY 9

walk by. He is eager to be the "nice" guy and help others out. For example. ^e afternoon he sat around helping

to stuff and seal c. ..^ , es that needed to go out that day while his own work sat waiting on his desk.

In general, Mr. Andrews hesitates to ask an employee to do anything out of the ordinary, such as to work late or carry an extra assignment He secretly shudders at the thought of giving orders. He never gets openly angry and studiously avoids criticizing anybody. To the contrary, he always looks for the positives and goes out of his way to find something nice to say about everybody's work. Nobody ever gets fired once they've been with the office more than three months. He himself is the very model of a hard worker, frequently at his desk well past 7:00 p.m., and often coming in to work on Saturdays. But if anybody in his office looks overtired, he is quick to tell the person to take the rest of the day off. Clea.rly, nobody would call this "gentle soul" who never yells, criticizes, or makes demands on anybody, anything but "nice,"

THE PERSONALITY UNDERNEATH The "nice** boss b terrified of being disliked or of being seen as a bad guy. Open conflict upsets him, and he goes to great lengths to avoid it. To him, conflict means that somebody will be badly hurt emotionally, and he doesn't want to be responsible for that.

It makes him uncomfortable to be confronted with the frustrations or anger of others. He hopes therefore that by being constantly "nice" others won't make demands or bring him into the middle of their oflice fights, bec^iuse ho hates taking sides in a dispute. Someone is sure to wind up angry at him. he feels.

Mr. Andrews has periods where he Ls raging mad inside himself, but he never shows it During these moods, which increase over the years, he sees himself as a victim, being used, abused, and neglected by others. "I go around helping everybody, but nobody gives a damn about me,'* he tells himself. Particularly when things seem to be falling apart in the oftice because the work is late or not being done properly, be rages secretly over the fact that the burden of responsibility is always being placed on his shoulders. However, he never tells anybody how he feels because it upsets him and makes him feel guilty to think of himself as having these feelings of resentment

10 THE "NICE'' PEOPLE

THE REWARD The "nice" boss does manage, by and large, to avoid being involved in the conflicts, or disharmony around him. Employees smile when they're around him, rarely raise their voices, nor make anything but positive, happy-type conversation with him.

Those who quit their jobs to go elsewhere never tell him the truth about their real sources of discontent or frustration. He therefore is never made to feel that personnel dissatisfaction has anything to do with him. The behavior of others aroimd him allows him to see himself as a person who creates an atmosphere of peace, love, and harmony around him. This self-image is very satisfying to him.

THE PRICE The heaviest price the "nice" boss pays at work is that he loses his best employees. This happens for several reasons. Since he is loath to criticize or be disliked by anybody, he does not really discriminate between an excellent performance and a lesser one. The genuinely talented, productive, and creative employees begin to feel that it's not worth extending themselves. They begin to feel stagnant and unchallenged. Eventually, they become so bored and frustrated that they quit. Over the years, as the best people leave, the "nice" boss finds himself increasingly surrounded by the dingers, the lesser competent, and the sycophants, who can't really produce well but who feel safe and protected because they can survive by smiling and playing the game of being "nice." The more manipulative employees begin to see that they can get away with anything and so they take more and more liberties: long coffee breaks, coming to work late, and leaving early. Consequently the quaUty of work steadily declines.

Inside himself the "nice" boss is also chronically tense, worried, and prone to psychosomatic problems such as ulcers and hypertension. Because he carries so much unnecessary responsibility on his shoulders, it also has a particularly disastrous effect on his home life. He arrives there in the evening totally exhausted. He rarely, if ever, makes love to his wife. His excuse is that he*s tired. Often when he tries he finds himself barely able to get an erection. In turn, his wife starts to gain weight, drink, and feel increasingly unattractive and unloved.

His children suffer too, because he has no energy or time to get involved with them, and so they begin to function poorly. Eventually, everything in his life begins to feel

THE MYTH OF THE "NICE" GUY 11

meaningless and empty. He doesn't understand why, with all of his good intentions, he feels so lonely, friendless, and neglected. Eventually this plummets him into a chronically depressed attitude and/or escape through alcoholism.

THE ^NICE^ EMPLOYEES

Whether they be female or male, the behavior pattern of this kind of "nice" employee runs a similar course. They try to ingratiate themselves to the boss by being always ready and eager to help out. They offer to take on additional tasks that are not really a part of their responsibilities. Though often overburdened and exploited because of this extreme willingness to cooperate, they never complain or get angry. They may walk around looking exhausted and unhappy, but when asked if anything's wrong they are quick to answer that "everything is just great!**

They zero in and thrive on their employer's weak areas and get a sense of security and indispensability by offering to do things for him that he tends to do poorly himself. That is, if their employer tends to be forgetful, they become his reminders. If he drinks too much or acts rude, they cover up or apologize for him. They also try to protect him against any people who would confront, challenge, or criticize him.

THE PERSONALTTY UNDERNEATH Insecurity and a desire for power that they do not feel adequate enough to obtain directly for themselves are the major motivations of the "nice" employees. Being always helpful and covering for their boss's weak areas allows them to feel secure and important. They get their sense of strength by feeding on their employer's dependency.

"Nice" employees feel basically inferior to others and are also frightened of failure. By being "nice** they lessen these fears of failing, and they even stand a chance of becoming successful and powerful by making themselves indispensable to their boss. Their underlying hostihty shows through in the way they will mistreat and even sabotage those who are in lesser positions. This is particularly true if they sense challenge or competition with their own ambitions.

THE REWARD Through theu "nice** behavior, this kind

12 THE **NICE'' PEOPLE

of employee often does manage to work his way into a special relationship with the boss. They may eventually become his confidants; they are let in on everything, and this allows them to feel increasingly secure and powerful. In addition, even though they themselves feel unable to assert themselves, or to achieve or succeed independently, they are able to get some of the power they crave by letting the boss do their aggressing for them. He brings in the business and fights the important battles, and they can reap the benefits without taking the risks simply by remaining in his shadow and being "nice" to him.

THE PRICE The "nice" employee never grows up. He or she remains basically a child in the work situation—a dependent sycophant who thrives by ac(X)mmodating to someone else's needs. Because the boss is "daddy,'* they can never feel genuinely independent or successful in their own right.

Eventually, the "nice" employees lose all of their own unique creative potential as they become increasingly preoccupied with their status, promotions, and manipulations. At the same time, however, there is always the gnawing realization that if the boss leaves, gets sick, or dies, they might be nowhere. This creates a constant sense of vulnerability and self-doubt.

The boss also pays a price for the "nice** employee's behavior. Because he is covered up for, and his weaknesses and dependencies are being exploited, he is lulled into feeling he doesn't have to improve or change. For example, if he is tactless, abrupt, an incipient alcoholic, careless, or whatever, he doesn't realize his impact on others because his "nice" employees cover for him. Therefore, he feels no pressure to alter his self-destructive patterns. Consequently, his behavior is bound to deteriorate, and both he and the "nice" employees will pay the consequences for this.

THE ^^NICE'^ TEACHER

Little or no homework, lots of rappmg in class about "feelings," no required attendance, and easy exams are the hallmarks of the "nice" teacher. He or she tries to be everybody's friend, and runs a "hang loose" class.

"Nice" teachers can be easily manipulated by a tale of

THE MYTH OF THE "NICE" GUY 13

woe. They promise everything to everybody. "Nice** teachers will align themselves with student causes, and may even let the students decide themselves on what grade they want.

THE PERSONALITY UNDERNEATH **Nice** teachers have an imderlying resentment toward authority figures, and dislike casting themselves in that role. Underneath that reluctance, however, often lurks a hard-core authoritarian that they try to suppress, but that pops up whenever any student becomes aggressive enough to say he doesn*t like the way the class is being run. Suddenly, the "nice** teacher is not so nice.

THE REWARD "Nice** teachers can see themselves as special heroes, and martyrs to the establishment. Students **dig'* them, and they get lots of compliments and flattery.

THE PRICE Most of the time, it*s the students who pay the price. "Nice" teachers provide students with an unrei model of the competitive worid of education, from which the teacher has benefited, and which the students may someday need. Because they don't set meaningful standards and are equally "nice" to all students, the "nice** teacher's grades and letters of recommendation eventually become worthless. By not providing the necessary course content, their students are also that much less prepared for future courses. Because they promise everything to everyone, they often disappoint students when they either forget, or don't have time to fulfill the promises. Their behavior then is an act of indirect hostility toward the students, an act that allows the teacher to look like a "good guy,*' while in the end the students pay the price. The student who is disgruntled and speaks out in favor of more course structure stands to be made to feel **unhip'* and **uptight.**

THE ^NICE^* STUBENTS

They sit toward the front of the class taking careful notes, asking "sincere" questions, smiling, and nodding afiBrmatively in the direction of the teacher. They often stay after class, crowding the teacher's desk to continue the discussion. They identify themselves with the teacher more than with the students.

14 THE "NICE" PEOPLE

THE PERSONALITY UNDERNEATH "Nice" students are very ambitious and highly manipulative. Their smiling and nodding in class is indiscriminate, and is, in fact, a conning of the teacher. They give all teachers the same worshipful response. They are basically frightened of authority, hungry to please, and insecure about their own talents and abilities. Their insincere reactions represent their desperate need to achieve. They relate poorly to peers, because they are secretly extremely competitive, and will not be derailed from their achievement goals by "time-wasting" peer relationships.

THE REWARD Their techniques usually work, and they often get high grades, teacher approval, and good letters of recommendation. With even a fairly good basic intelligence, they stand a better chance of academic success than the quiet, less manipulative student of equal intelligence.

THE PRICE "Nice" students treat teachers as objects to be used. Their hostility is seen in their indiscriminate manipulation of authority figures and their disdain for the attempts of fellow students who use individuality to make their education and lives more relevant. When they graduate and take on the role of a teacher themselves, they will tend to function in the hard-core authoritarian fashion, again with a disregard for individual needs.

THE ^*2VfCJE'» PSYCHOTHERAPIST

The "nice" psychotherapist is totally accepting, supportive, and "loving" with his patients. His therapy hours are fun, and he makes people "feel good." He will readily reduce his fee, not push bill collection, and run his hour over the usual fifty-minute limit

THE PERSONALITY UNDERNEATH The "nice" psychotherapist is as dependent on his patients as they become on him. Basically his "niceness" serves his needs, not his patients', for he is equally "nice" to all of them. He himself is uncomfortable with anger and aggressive feelings and prefers the "loving" approach. Beneath his "niceness," however, there is considerable resentment and dis-

THE MYTH OF THE "NICE" GUY 15

tance from people. His "niceness" is a "head trip" that protects him against feehng the anger that lies underneath-

THE REWARD The "nice" psychotherapist is loved by his patients, builds a big practice, and has patients who stay with him a long time. He feels godlike and important to them.

THE PRICE Because of his own needs, the "nice" psychotherapist tends to nurture his patients' dependencies and keeps them coming for years and years. To accommodate their therapist the patients change little, if at all, though they always tell him how much they've changed. His own fear of anger and aggressive, assertive behavior sets a poor role model for his patients, who come to believe that they will someday be "cured" strictly by their doctor's "loving-ness." The psychotherapist's indirect aggression comes through as he duplicates the role of the over-protective mother by nurturing dependency and stifling assertive, aggressive behavior.

THE ^NlCtr PATIENTS

The "nice" patients are more interested in having their doctor like them than in getting better. They always tell the doctor how wonderful he is and never resist his authority. Their illnesses often drag on for years,

THE PERSONALITY UNDERNEATH The "nice" patients are hungry for attention and unable to find appropriate ways of obtaining it directly by self-assertion. They have a large stake in their illness and the concern and attention of their doctors. It provides them with a sense of importance and love. The "nice" patients are childlike personalities wanting to be taken care of. At the same time they are controlling in their dependency and will quit a doctor who doesn't confirm their "sick" self-perception. They are incapable of real interpersonal pleasure experiences and, instead, get their pleasure by suffering and the indirect benefits of care and attention.

THE REWARD The "nice" patients get the attention they are seeking, and this allows them to feel special. The confirmation of their illnesses gives them a ready

16 THE ''NICE" PEOPLE

rationalization for not asserting themselves or competing successfully in the everyday world. They are often told that they are *'very good patients" by their doctors, and this makes them feel very important. By being sick and, therefore, helpless, they gets lots of attention and are given to without being required to give in return.

THE PRICE The "nice** patients use their illnesses as tools to control their families. Therefore, they can't afford to really ever get better. Becoming healthy is a frightening prospect, because it may throw tiiem back on their own feelings of failure and inadequacy. They must, therefore, remain sick to validate their existence.

A heavy price is also paid by the other family members. The "nice" patients' illnesses are weapons by which they can generate guilt and abort the emotional growth of family members who want to free themselves from involve ment with this person.

THE *Wf€E»» TRAVELING COMPANIONS

"Let's not spoil the vacation by arguing" is the major motto of the "nice" traveling companions. On the surface they are totally cooperative and compliant. They're always happy to do what you want to do and to go where you want to go. When they don't like something they usually say nothing. At worst, they become quiet. When things go badly they never complain.

They make no demands, and in hotels they allow you to choose a bed first and let you decide who will sleep by the window. They'll always try the restaurant you want to go to. Their role is being tiie "helpful" one, and so they warn you not to eat certain foods, tell you not to go to certain places because they're dangerous, make sure no suspicious-looking people steal your money, and have an instinct for keeping you away from people who don't look "nice." Othenvise, everything is usually "marvelous," according to them.

THE PERSONALITY UNDERNEATH The **nice" traveling companions are basically very dependent and passive, readily following the lead of others, and needuig their support They are fearful of any conflict or aggressive

THE MYTH OF THE "NICE" GUY 17

emotion that will threaten the relationship and possibly disturb their dependency.

They are also fearful of taking responsibility and resistant to making decisions. Because tiiey suppress their assertiveness, they are in many ways indentityless in that they have few clearly defined preferences or enthusiasms. Though they go along with things, they rarely, if ever, really get into things or get very much jrieasure out of them.

On trips their repressed aggression emerges in indirect ways. For example, they become easily fatigued and readily ill.

THE REWARD The "nice" traveling companions manage to avoid the open conflict that they fear and to get polite and "friendly" reactions from others. When an argument or fight erupts they can always take comfort in the fact that it was started by the other person.

When things get bungled up or an experience is boring, they do not have to feel responsible, because they did not make the decisions.

Because they're so "nice,** others tend to feel guilty about leaving them on their own and going off to pursue a personal interest. When the "nice" traveling companion is tired everyone goes to bed, and when they're ill there's always someone around to take care of them. Through their "niceness" they manage to exert a great deal of control over the freedom and spontaneity of others.

THE PRICE Everyone on the trip pays a price for the aggression-fearful company of the "nice" person. The vacation readily becomes monotonous and deadening. Everything is always "marvelous," but there is no genuine feedback and no sense of being with another real person. Anything spontaneous or in the least bit risky is avoided. Because the "nice" traveling companions are always so socially appropriate, they tend to make others feel self-conscious for letting go in a spontaneous way. Traveling with the "nice" companion can be so numbing it becomes equally meaningful to put the vacation money in the bank and look at slides of the vacation spot in one's living room.

THE ^NMCE^ SPORT

Bob Richmond was in Phoenix, Arizona, for a computer

18 THE '^NICE" PEOPLE

sales convention. He was known in his field as a mathematical genius. In addition, Bob was an excellent sportsman.

His wife received an emergency phone call from Bob at two o'clock one afternoon. Bob was in the hospital. It seemed that he had spent the morning playing tennis and had been winning every set. At the end of the final one his rattled and bumbling opponent accidentally smashed a ball into Bob's eye as Bob was walking toward the net to shake hands. The damage was severe and required an operation.

In a subsequent discussion with Bob over what happened, it became clear that during the entire morning's play Bob's partner was making one stupid play after another. Bob never said a word nor criticized his partner's play. He was too "nice" to do that. Instead, he'd look for any spark of decent play and lavishly praise him with comments, such as "great shot"

This was the second sporting accident that Bob had been the victim of. On another occasion he had gone pheasant hunting with his brother. His brother, who was an inferior hunter in comparison to Bob, was missing shots frequently. The hunting dogs were also being ruined in terms of their effectiveness, because Bob would always let his brother take the good shots and so as not to be "offensive** or "insulting" would not shoot as a backup when his brother missed. His brother was missing so often that the dogs couldn't do their job of retrieving. One Saturday afternoon his brother's sloppiness resulted in an accidental gun discharge that woundeii Bob in the arm.

THE PERSONALITY UNDERNEATH In part Bob is a product and a victim of a socialization process that makes it taboo for one to openly and publicly exult in one's own abilities or criticize a partner imless one is specifically asked for help. One is fearful of being labeled arrogant or a braggart and to be wished the worst by the other players. "Nice" sports only look for positive things to say.

Bob knew he was good, but felt embarrassed about openly acknowledging this fact. He bent over backward fearing that he'd be disliked for being "too good.** He was, therefore, always supercautious about not saying anything to make the other players feel inferior.

THE MYTH OF THE **NICE" GUY 19

THE REWARD By being supportive of all his coplayers, even when they performed poorly, Bob could feel comfortable that he wasn't offending anybody and could enjoy his reputation as a "great" guy and a "great" sport. He was also always being sought after to play, because he was a challenge, but never made anyone feel inferior. Being a "nice" sport also had other side benefits. He was quickly promoted at work to an executive position, and he brought the company lots of business.

THE PRICE Because he never critiqued his partners, they never learned. In this way, he was indirectly aborting their development. Their sloppiness and lack of development continued until Bob finally became the victim of it.

The "nice" guy sports ethic also has other prices. Be^ cause it is taboo to criticize another player, the person who is playing poorly is left to feel furious at himself and to rage inwardly in angry self-attacks. The aggression that could be mobilized by being critiqued and prodded by the other is lost. Being supported by comments such as "nice try" when one is playing poorly can be an immensely frustrating experience, one that can readily generate considerable self-hate. It is one of those crazy paradoxes of athletic competition that though players go all-out to win, they are not supposed to exult over their triumphs or criticize another's play or mistake. It is not good sportsmanship. One is only permitted to freely and continually get angry at one's own flaws.

THE ^^^ICE^"" LOVERS

Alan and Sylvia are "nice" lovers. They've been with each other for five months and nine days and came together to one of our marathon therapy groups to work on their relationship.

Both are "sensitive" people, so within their relationship they've been very gentle with each other. When Alan does little things that annoy her, Sylvia won't mention them to him because she doesn't want to hurt his feelings or cause him to feel rejected. When Alan thinks that Sylvia's clothes are unattractive or when she cooks something for him that he doesn't like, he never mentions it. On the contrary, he'll purposely flatter her taste in clothing and "build up her ego" by eating the food he doesn't like with "gusto." He

20 THE «*NICE'' PEOPLE

does this because he feels Sylvia lacks self-confidence and he wants to give her tender loving care, unconditionally. Besides, he doesn't want to be like his father, who was always criticizing everything about his mother.

Weekend planning often gets bogged down because Sylvia will ask Alan what he wants to do. His usual reply is, *'It doesn't really make any difference to me. Any thin g you want to do will be O.K." Then they go round and round on it. Sylvia finds this bothersome to her, because when they really wind up doing what she likes, such as going to a classical music concert, Alan, who had been enthusiastic about the idea, will be dozing before midconcert. Sylvia then feels guilty about her choice. Alan reacts similarly to Sylvia's edginess when they go to the football games.

When they have sex Alan always asks Sylvia with great concern whether she's had an orgasm. He's always super-gentle and patient with her in bed. Secretly, Sylvia would much prefer it if Alan would be rougher and more aggressive. Inwardly, she also gets quite annoyed at his preoccupation with her orgasms, because it makes her feel like a medical case. She doesn't mention these bothersome things, because she feels Alan's motives are really kindly and **nice," and she doesn't want to kill this "sensitivity."

Recently, Alan and Sylvia have been delving into psychology. TTieir mutual philosophy has become "do your own thing" and "don't lay your trips on the other person." This has increased their cautiousness around each other, particularly in regard to setting expectations or making demands. They came to our marathon therapy group because the relationship seemed to be going stale. Alan was complaining of feelings of boredom and deadness and had begun to show interest in other girls. Sylvia had been having crying spells and the "bluesies," which she said made her want to sleep aU the time.

THE PERSONALITY UNDERNEATH Alan and Sylvia's great sensitivity with each other is a reflection of an underlying, exaggerated fear of anger, assertiveness, and confrontation. They are both reaUy individuals with considerable aggression, but they hold these feelings in. They have learned to equate "niceness" with fight avoidance. Each fears theyll somehow crush the other if they make demands or level about their feelings. When he was a boy Alan's mother used to tell him that if he raised his voice to

THE MYTH OF THE "NICE" GUY 21

her she would get sick and maybe even die. Then he'd be sorry! Sylvia's mother used to tell her that only tramps talked loudly or got openly angry. Consequently, both Alan and Sylvia are afraid of real closeness because they're afraid of losing control over their aggressive feelings. Instead of experiencing these feelings directly, Sylvia gets anxiety attacks and crying spells. Alan gets feelings of boredom and deadness. Their "do your own thing" philosophy is an excuse to keep distance and avoid aggressive interaction.

THE REWARD The "nice** behavior allows both Alan and Sylvia, who are very sensitive to rejection and criticism, to feel comfortable and accepted during the early stages of the relationship. Their early reaction to each other was that they'd finally found someone who was very special and who understood and accepted them as they "really were." They could also avoid the hassling and conflicts that only get both of them uptight. When the relationship finally breaks up they can botii go on feeling it was just part of life. Both have done their own thing, and this, according to Alan and Sylvia, is what relationships are really all about

THE PRICE The "nice" lovers always watch their "ideal" relationships come to a crashing halt. Both then continue their search for another person they can really "groove" with. However, both wiUl be left feeling that they didn't really get to know each other. In fact, they didn't. As they go from relationship to relationship, they will continue their pattern of initial euphoria, followed by slowly developing feeUngs of boredom and deadness, and a breakup. ITbien the search for a new partner will begin again. Each relationship, however, will only produce a deeper sense of alienation, cynicism, doubt, and fear about ever really "making it" with another person.

LIVING WITH THE ^^NICE*^ PERSON

Coping with the disengagement and indirect aggression of the "nice" person, in the various patterns described in this chapter, are among the more complicated interpersonal negotiations in our society. That is, invariably the "nice" person induces guilt in the person confronting him. After all, how can you get angry toward someone who's only try-

22 THE '^NICE" PEOPLE

ing to be "nice"? The most common defense on behalf of the "nice" person one will encounter is "Why don't you leave him alone? He's not hurting anybody." Or "Just do your thing and let him do his." It is, therefore, important for one*s emotional self-protection to be aware of the negative or destructive impact of the "nice" person's behavior on yourself before you engage him directly.

A primary question to ask oneself in trying to deal with the "nice" person is "What needs of mine are being served by his 'niceness'?" Invariably individuals who get closely involved with the "nice" person are protecting their own aggression-phobic tendencies. That is, they are attracted to this kind of person because they are left alone and never confronted- Individuals who tend to involve themselves with "nic«" people are, therefore, really saying the following important thing about themselves: "I am attracted to the 'nice* person because he lets me get away with my hangups, spoiled behavior, and fear of strong involvement" The unspoken agreement between the "nice" person and those he involves himself with is "You don't make any demands on me and I won't make any demands on you."

In a recent marathon therapy session coconducted by Dr. Bach and Dr. Goldberg a married couple participated, in which the husband was the classic "nice" guy. Initially, everybody in the marathon liked him because of his complimentary, "sensitive" style. Everyone, that is, except his wife. She felt she was being driven crazy by his inability to take a firm stand, and express anger and other strong emotions directly. She couldn't stop his phony "adoring" behavior of her, which she felt was only smothering her and making her feel guilty whenever she sought to function independently of him. The wife of this "nice" guy would scream in frustration, but her husband would do little more than get slightly uncomfortable and say "I don't understand what you want of me."

Eventually, this passivity began to drive the group crazy too, once they had tired of his constant pleasantness and flattery. However, with the encouragement of the therapists the "nice" guy husband made a breakthrough and began to come on stronger. At this point the group made an important discovery. As he became strong, his wife tried to seduce him back into being "nice." It soon became increasingly clear that his "nice" guy behavior was allowing her to remain a demanding, self-indulgent, uncontrolled "baby."

THE MYTH OF THE "NICE" GUY 23

Though she had pleaded for more strength from him, when it finally came, she didn't really like it and tried to sabotage it The primary question to be asked then is "What needs of both parties are being served by the *nice* person's behavior?" Basically, only aggression-phobic people will find the **nice" person's behavior anything but stagnating, boring, and emotionally intolerable.

Once having become less afraid of one's own aggression, deahng with &e "nice" person becomes a simpler matter. The "nice'* person will recognize by your directness and assertiveness that you will not buy his essentially phony or manipulative behavior, and he will either change or leave the relationship. In general, "nice** behavior is only temporarily comforting to aggression-phobic individuals. In very little time this behavior becomes limiting and very duU to be around, not to mention all of the destructive side effects it has. The directly aggressive person may be initially less comfortable to be with, but he recharges relationships and social situations with an activating energy that is indispensable to staying involved and emotionally healthy.

Children having to live with the "nice" mommy or "nice" daddy will have a considerably more difficult time of it Without professional or sophisticated adult intervention they will probably not be able to impact and change this behavior. However, close friends and relatives of the family, alert to these patterns, can be helpful in alleviating somt of the guilt and the binds in which the child is enveloped by relating to him and his parents in directly aggressive ways. This modeling, which the child sees, can have a very therapeutic impact

THE PRICE OF ^^NMCE^^

**Nice" behavior eventually has a "price" for both the "nice" guy and the person or persons involved with him. It is alienating, indirectly hostile, and self-destructive because:

1. The "nice" guy tends to create an atmosphere such that others avoid giving him honest, genuine feedback. This blocks his emotional growth.

2. "Nice" behavior will ultimately be distrusted by others. That is, it generates a sense of uncertainty and lack of safety in others, who can never be sure if they will be sup-

24 THE "NICE" PEOPLE

ported by the "nice" guy in a crisis situation that requires an aggressive confrontation with others.

3. "Nice" guys stifle the growth of others. They avoid giving others genuine feedback, and they deprive others of a real person to assert against. This tends to force others in the relationship to turn their aggression against themselves. It also tends to generate guilt and depressed feelings in others who are intimately involved and dependent on him.

4. Because of his chronic "niceness," others can never be certain if the relationship with a "nice" guy could endure a conflict or sustain an angry confrontation, if it did occur spontaneously. This places great limits on the potential extent of intimacy in the relationship by placing others constantly on their guard.

5. "Nice" behavior is not reliable. Periodically, the "nice" person explodes in unexpected rage and those involved with him are shocked and unprepared to cope with it

6. The "nice" guy, by holding his aggression in, may pay a physiological price in the form of psychosomatic problems and a psychological price in the form of alienation.

7. "Nice" l5ehavior is emotionally imreal behavior. It puts severe limitations on all relationships, and the ultimate victim is the "nice" person himself.

CHAPTER 2

The ^^Nice^^Mother and the ^^Nice^^ Father

Rock-a-bye-baby on the tree top. When the wind blows the cradle will rock. When the bough breaks the cradle will fall. And down will come baby, cradle and alL

How many mothers, while reflexively singing this lullaby, are aware of its lyric content and the hostile fantasy it contains? Its content is undoubtedly in sharp contrast to what most mothers are consciously experiencing as they lull their babies to sleep. Most mothers would, in fact, become extremely disturbed at the suggestion that they do harbor such resentful, destructive feelings and impulses toward their young infants.

Partially because they themselves anxiously overcon-trol their own aggressive impulses toward their children, many mothers tend to become upset over any aggressive manifestations coming from their child. Specifically, outbursts of screaming, crying, raging, and thrashing about that normal babies are prone to do, wiU be distressing to aggression-phobic mothers. Consequently, they will try to suppress these responses.

However, the healthy fusion of aggression with developmental processes is crucial to the child's eventual mastery of the environment and his struggle for survival in a difficult, competitive culture. Particularly in today's world, where achievement and success are prized and usually result from assertive individual enterprise, the capacity to be constructively aggressive is an integral part of a fulfilling life.

26 THE "NICE" PEOPLE

Critical aspects of development that require aggressive mobilization include: learning to master physical and intellectual skills; expressing exploratory drives; moving from total dependence in infancy to partial autonomy during school age and eventual independence in the late adolescence; recognizing, expressing, and obtaining satisfaction of one's imique needs; overcoming obstacles that produce frustration; determining vocational and life goals; seeking out and developing satisfying relationships; and successfully expressing one's sexuality.

From conception onward, growth and development are intimately bound up with appropriate aggressive expression. The healthy fetus makes his existence known to his mother by kicking. The very first response of the healthy baby to separation from its mother's body is the aggressive birth cry. This symbolic expression of the "rage to live" has the important biological function of starting the baby's breathing.

During the first few months of life, crying is the only way the baby can assertively communicate his discomfort and need. Tlie quiet baby so often wrongly described as the "good" baby may turn out instead to be physically sick or emotionally disturbed. The healthy hungry baby, for example, from whom breast or bottle is prematurely removed, will cry and thrash about in protest. The so-called **good" baby will just lie there, passively accepting, but not meaningfully or directly communicating or signaling his needs.

THE INFANTAS AGGRESSIVE ENERGY

During the first year of life, the infant's aggressive energies allow him to move his arms and legs, roll over, pull himself up, propel himself on all fours, and begin to sit up. This aggressive energy, often taken for granted, has been found to be absent in some disturbed infants, in particular those who were raised in institutions without individual mothering attention. Without this appropriate mothering stimulation, orphans may retreat into a state of apathetic withdrawal, a passive nonresponsiveness accompanied by an inability to make human eye contact. This disease, first described in the research literature by Dr. Renee A. Spitz in his study on infants brought up in foundling homes, has been called marasmus or anaclitic depression,^ The be-

THE «*NTCE'' MOTHER AND THE "NICE" FATHER 27

havior indeed resembles that of the behavior of a deeply depressed adult

Tlie vital baby who responds by biting, tearing, and crawling into things is also in the process of developing perceptual coordination and manipulative mastery. If blocked or prohibited from expressing these impulses by expressions of parental disapproval, such as slapping or being isolated, the child leams that spontaneous enjoyment of physical activity and the exploration of the worid is "bad." These activities or impulses will then become progressively inhibited in the child. He will narrow his scope and degree of responsiveness and engage only in such activities in the future with inhibition, caution, and guilt.

During the second year of life the child becomes more immediately aware of reality and vulnerable to frustrations. The aggressive behavior becomes increasingly purposeful. The child is becoming aware of specific interferences to his activities and impulses and of who the frustrating agent is. At the same time he begins to lose some of his feelings of omnipotence, that glorious feeling of being the center of the universe, in which gratification is always provided upon demand. As he is learning about reality, he is also beginning to leam purposeful self-assertion.

The time between IVi and 2Vi years of age, for the normal child, is a period of negativism and resistance. During this period the child is learning to say "Nol** It is normal for outbursts of anger to appear during this period. These outbursts reach their peak by 2 years, and so-called negative resistance reaches its height by 2Vi years of age. As the child becomes increasingly aware of mother as a person, he also becomes possessive and readily aroused to anger because of jealousy. Therefore, at this age children commonly become angry at other children or adults who seem to be taking away some of their mother's love and attention. The extremely passive and compliant chQd who does not express these negative feelings may have already had some of his developmental vitality diminished.

Even at this yoimg age, behavior that may be the product of extreme repression of overt aggression is manifested by the turning of aggressive impulses against the self. These constricted toddlers may bite themselves or bang their heads in displaced, self-destructive fury. In the older child and young adult these identical, inhibited manifestations will be expressed more subtly. It may take the

28 THE «NICE*» PEOPLE

form of teeth grinding during sleep, nail biting, lip chewing, or scratching at one's skin. In the adult these manifestations become even less obvious. They manifest themselves in the form of being accident or illness prone, being morbidly preoccupied, or by repeated entry into unsatisfying, self-destractive relationships and situations.

Some theorists pohit to the tendency toward rampant destnictiveness against the ecology and violence among people as being at least partially the result of modem Western civilization's tendency to snuflf out and inhibit much of the healthy curiosity and exploratory tendencies and aggressiveness in childhood.

The child encounters a constant barrage of "Don'ts!" and "Nos" in contemporary urban settings that he would not have been faced with in more primitive environments. The child's spontaneous exploratory impulses and desires are being frustrated and curtailed at every turn. Out-of-doors the child is endlessly cautioned about the dangers of automobiles and other traffic. Children are taught to be wary of strangers and to not speak with anyone that they do not know. In the home their movements are inhibited through constant warnings about the dangers of electrical appliances, the stove, glass objects, the medicine cabinet, and the many "precious," fragile furnishings that crowd the rooms. The cult of privacy that exists in many homes further means that many rooms and spaces are not to be explored or entered. And of course the heavy emphasis in our culture on neatness, orderliness, and cleanliness further inhibit the child's spontaneous movements.

Once the child comes of school age and enters into relationships with children his own age, the capacity for self-assertion is particularly crucial for gaining peer acceptance and for confronting and overcoming the increasing number of social obstacles and frustrations.

In the school setting, the "nice'* passive child may become the teacher's pet, but at the same time becomes a target for scapegoating, bullying, teasing, and being left out of games and social events by other children.

The problem of the aggressively inhibited child will come into particularly strong focus during the stressful period of adolescence. During tiiis stage all the assertive energy the adolescent can muster will be required for the movement toward independent functioning, the determina-

THE "NICE" MOTHER AND THE "NICE" FATHER 29

tion of appropriate vocational goals, the development of a personally satisfying lifestyle, and relationships of intimacy with the opposite sex. Passive adolescents will find their patterns of passivity, withdrawal, and intellectual rumination intensifying under the pressures of this lifestage. They may seek shelter in drugs, religious cults, esoteric philosophies, or communal homes, all in search of the instant answer or rationalization that would allow them to avoid the difficult and painful assertive efforts demanded of them on the way to becoming self-sustaining, independent, and functioning adults.

During adulthood and old age the maintenance of an aggressive, externally directed response is essential for avoiding the traps of insulation and isolation from changing social realities, and the tendency to retreat behind illnesses during times of stress. The continuing capacity to muster this response may mean the difference in facilitating the ability to adapt, live in the here-and-now, and find creative, personally satisfying alternatives in a society that worships youth and shims the elderly. Old age for the passive person may become a pathetic replay of childhood, in which he regresses into a dependency and demanding-ness on others that ultimately results in rejection and despair.

THE RAISING OF HIDBEN AGGRESSORS

When open aggressive expression or interpersonal encounters are suppressed, either for conscious reasons, such as the desire to be polite or "nice," or for deeper motivations, such as the fear of angry interchanges, these feelings are not lost. Rather, they are driven underground, so to speak, and re-emerge transformed behind socially acceptable masks.

Suppression of the expression of angry feelings may begin a spiral of complicated communication entanglements. For example, a toOet-trained four-year-old is prevented from expressing resentment, jealousy, and rage over the birth of a sibling. The parents keep informing the child of how lucky and happy he should feel to have a new brother or sister and how naughty it is to be jealous or selfish. To win the parents* approval, these feelings are

30 THE "NICE" PEOPLE

repressed. Suddenly, however, the toilet-trained four-year-old begins to wet his bed again. This is an indirect expression of the resentment and anger toward the parent that was blocked from direct, guilt-free expression. The original anger assumes the form of a "medical" problem. It is now a much more complicated phenomenon to deal with, as the child is no longer aware of the original underlying feelings. The child is now also able to aggravate and distress the parents without the risks of an open confrontation and rejection through his "problem." In this way, a simple feeling of blocked resentment becomes a long-term source of difficulty.

THE TRAGEDY OF THE ^GOOD*^ BABY

As briefly mentioned earlier in this chapter, some of the most severely emotionally disturbed children were originally perceived by their mothers to be model infants. This "good baby" was a very quiet, noncrjdng, and non-demanding infant.

In some of these instances the "good baby" behavior is an early symptom of the syndrome of autism, a form of childhood schizophrenia. The child is seen as "good" because he does not develop a functionally useful cry. Autism is one of the most severe forms of childhood psychosis, one in which the child shuns and even rebels against human contact and any form of human involvement or control The child relates comfortably only to objects, not people. He can stare at a washing machine or listen to the same song for hours at a time.

Some psychological studies of the parents of these autistic children have painted a portrait of them as highly intelligent, well-educated, and verbal, but emotionally cold. They are also described as easily threatened by and avoidant of aggressive give-and-take, and overly sensitive to the primitive responses of their infant. The husband-wife interaction tends to be quiet and controlled. These parents become particularly distressed by the anger or rage outbursts of their child, and consequently tend to avoid physical or emotional contact or handling of the child while he is expressing these feelings.^

Autistic children will not assert themselves in a direction toward other people. Their aggressive energy is often chan-

TBOE "NICE" MOTHER AND THE "NICE" FATHER 31

neled into self-destructive behaviors. They are known to hit their own faces, bang their heads against walls, bite themselves, and even tear at their own body in self-aggression.

Recently, a technique has been pioneered by Eh-. Robert Zaslow of San Jose, California, for the treatment of these autistic children. Briefly, in this therapy that he calls Z-process therapy, he induces a series of rage reactions by cradling the child as if it were a baby and not breaking contact or control over the child until the child finally makes genuine eye contact in a relaxed interaction. Before this is achieved the child will invariably protest and resist in every imaginable way against this human contact. He will emit incredibly intense anger and rage responses in his attempt to break contact. Eventually the child, after discharging these enormous feelings of rage and resentment, sometimes for a period of several hours, will begin to relax and make a genuine and loving eye contact response.

According to Dr. 2^1ow, he has been successful in treating many different emotional disorders whose roots are repressed aggression by using this technique. These include hyperkinesis, allergies, and school learning problems. Dr. Zaslow is doing with his technique what the parents were unable to do, namely controlling the child, tolerating the child's aggressive expression, and facilitating this expression and interaction within the relationship.

When this Z-process therapy is successfully completed, the child is able to express his anger directly at the therapist and not indirectly and manipulatively. He is able, for example, to punch the therapist's open, inviting hand while making direct eye contact. The child also then becomes capable of showing loving and positive emotions in human interaction, such as affection, smiling, and playfulness.®

THE MYTM OF THE CRUEL. CHILD

The widely read book Lord of the Flies, subsequently made into a film, depicted the cruel interactions that can occur among children. The traditional myth perpetuated by this film is that children are innately cruel little savages when uncontrollled and left to their own devices.

32 THE "NICE" PEOPLE

It is believed by the authors, and has been previously theorized by other researchers in child behavior, that this cruel response is only a by-product or displaced expression of aggressive feelings that were originally experienced within the family but were inhibited, punished, and repressed.

Aggression-repressive parents who bring up their children by the dictum that children should be seen and not heard, that sparing the rod spoils the child, and that respect means children do not talk back, we believe are indirectly creating a powerful and destructive reservoir of repressed aggressicm in their child. The child will be prone to seek out other, safe targets for these feelings, such as weaker peers or helpless animals. In fact, the severity and puni-tiveness of maternal discipline and the use of arbitrary power over the child has been shown to be related to the amount of a child's hostility toward other children and also to his resistance to social influence.

Studies of teasing behavior in children, a behavior often reacted to casually by adults but powerfully traumatic to the young victim of this behavior, suggest that it is significantly more prevalent among children from homes where discipline is severe and authoritarian, contrasted to homes with a tolerance for the open, direct expression of anger and assertiveness. A child who teases is expressing indirect hostility. The teasing is a manifestation of his inability to express aggression in open and direct ways. The teasing child is not reacting to real and immediate annoyances. He is scapegoating and expressing ill will that has been carried over as a result of past suppression of the direct expression of these feelings.

The biblical commandment "Honor thy mother and father" could profitably be altered to read, "Fight fairly with your mother and father." We believe that many of the common forms of displaced aggression such as scapegoating, bullying, prejudice, and cruelty are by-products of aggressive feelings first felt within the family but suppressed. The aggressively constructive family will be the one that not only accepts but energizes itself on the full and direct expression of these feelings in the home as they come up, giving them equal importance and respect alongside feelings of love and allowing them to enhance intimacy and provide useful information.

THE «*NICE'' MOTHER AND THE "NICE'' FATHER 33

BEWARE THE OVERCONTROLLEB ^NICE^^ CHILBI

Recent important research on violence by psychologist Dr. Edwin I. Megargee indicates that we have less to fear from the impulsive, openly aggressive child than from the heavily over-controlled child. Docile passivity and violent potential can be two sides of the same coin. Megargee's research shows that many of the most brutal, senseless murders of the past twenty years have been conmiitted by persons perceived to be mild mannered, inhibited, passive, and overcontrolled,'* It appears that the chronic repression of aggression created a dangerous boiling kettle. When the controls broke down under stress, the aggression burst forth in a brutal and bizarre way. The chapter "The 'Nice' Killers" in this book describes this phenomenon at great length.

THE CHILB MUST BEAL WITH FRUSTRATION

A popular theory regarding the origins of aggression that was originally set forth many years back theorized that the cause of aggression was frustration. Many enlightened parents who desired to raise peace-loving, unaggressive children proceeded to try to do so through a permissive child-rearing style that greatly minimized the frustrations. This approach has in many instances backfired. Many children raised in this fashion grew up to be more aggressive and with more problems than children brought up experiencing considerable frustrations.

This mode of upbringing without frustration had merely served to inculcate in the child an unreal sense of personaJ onmipotence. Whatever he wanted he got and felt he deserved. Most psychologists now acknowledge that it is only through the experiencing of and learning to deal with frustration that the child develops an ability to cope with reality and to realize and accept his own limitations. Children brought up with a permissive avoidance of frustration also grow up developing little tolerance for it. When they become young adults they manifest much greater difiiculty following through on long-range goals and plans. They have never learned to be assertive on their own behalf because

34 THE "NICE" PEOPLE

they never had to as children. They were catered to and learned to expect that all would be eventually given to them or would be made readily accessible. The victims of this child-rearing style are many of the bright, aimless yoimg people of today who float from job to job and home to home without being able to take hold on an integrated style of life.

Children learn to handle life and to utilize their aggressive energies constructively through parental resistance and opposition. The frustration-aggression theory became so popular in part because it reinforced the fantasy of an aggression-free human being. Parents who are afraid to frustrate their children are unwittingly harming them by not providing real situations, or a real person for the child to resist against. The child is given no opportunity to learn how to assert himself independently. With no overt resistance, the child's aggression may eventually even be turned against himself in the form of self-destructive indulgence in drugs, a tendency toward depression and inactivity, or even suicide. The "nice" guy parent who offers his child no resistance is unconsciously destroying his child's capacity to function and survive.

THE TRAINING OF DOVES AND HAWKS

The Women's Liberation movement has been very instrumental in forcing a re-examination of the validity of the notion that males are "naturally" more aggressive than females. It has pointed out that much of this difference can be attributed to social conditioning processes that negatively reinforce aggressive behavior in girls while positively reinforcing their passivity, and vice versa for boys.

A study by two Yale sociologists, Louis Wolf Goodman and Janet Lever, discussed in Ms. magazine, described this double standard as it is manifested in the selection of toys bought as gifts for children during the Christmas season. In thirty hours of observation in toy departments, no field workers reported a single scientific toy being bought for a girl. Toys purchased for boys were found to be significantly more designed for active, complex social activities. In addition, they were more vari^ and expensive than the toys for girls. "Feminine" toys were described to be typically of a passive, solitary, and simple nature.

In the marketing of children's costumes, boys were cast in aggressive, prestigious roles such as race car drivers, Superman, Indian chiefs, astronauts, or highway troopers. Girls, on the other hand, were depicted in roles that were significantly less commanding and aggressive, such as fairy princesses, ballerinas, nurses, or brides. In catalogue pictures that illustrated the use of the games and toys, the father was most often seen as the "instructor" or "play companion" to the child. Mother was seen in the role of "spectator" and on at least two occasions was shown in the process of cleaning up.

Toys used for aggressive play such as guns are usually not given to girls. Fashion dolls, which constitute a large percentage of the gifts for girls, seem to encourage the little girls to perceive themselves as mannequins, sex objects, or housekeepers. One doll, called "Bizzie Lizzie," represented a woman with a mop in one hand and an iron in the other, with a feather duster sweeper as optional equipment.*

One particularly emotionally destructive aspect of this lopsided socialization of the female to be passively oriented is that as adults some of them are unable to have a constructive, coromimicative, aggressive interchange within their intimate relationships. Instead they tend to become readily threatened by an aggressive interchange, break easily into tears, and become explosive or withdrawn. Or their aggression only emerges passively and indirectly. Psychological and physiological toll is taken through a vulnerability to disorders such as migraine headaches, neurasthenia, and masochistic interactions. All have as at least one of their root cores, repressed aggression.

It is particularly noteworthy that approximately 3.7 percent of all reported murders in America involve child killings and infanticide. Almost 100 percent of the time the murder is committed by the mother. The authors hypothesize that in some instances the woman who is imable to discharge her rage and frustration directly toward her husband and her role as wife and mother, passively acquiescing to demands, but unconsciously resenting the controls and pressure she faces, may release her murderous fury against her child instead.

The anxiety that mothers have over the greater aggressiveness of their sons and the mothers' tendency to overreact in an attempt to control this aggression may be a

S6 THE «NTCE'' PEOPLE

nitical factor in explaining the statistics that show that najor psychological problems such as autism, reading :>roblems, stuttering, and delinquency are significantly more prevalent in boys than in girls. In an attempt to control the ireaded aggressive potential of their sons, these mothers Dverly inhibit their male child's aggressive behavior. The repressed aggressive feelings of the boy are then instead expressed passively and indirectly through a resistance to earning and socialization.

Equally hazardous to the emotional development of the male chUd is the mother's tendency to turn the business of disciplining the boy over to the father, thus making the father the "bad" guy. Mother meanwhile solicitously empathizes with tht boy's pain and hurt feelings. This produces 1 greater distance or alienation between the boy and his father than between the boy and his mother. It makes identification with his father more diflBcult because he is significantly more fearful of him than of his mother.

In major part, thanks to the Women's Liberation movement, aggressive expression in the female will undoubtedly imdergo dramatic change and become continually more direct. The authors see this as having an extremely beneficial effect in the hberation of the male as well. Men wiU no longer need to react toward women in guilt-oriented, [)verly protective, and solicitous ways. They will no longer liave to see themselves as the "heavy," the ogre who callously crushed the fragile feminine flower. Furthermore, it will allow men to move away from their defensive posture of constantly needing to prove to the world that they are the able providers, the capable himters, warriors, and breadwinners.

AGGRESSiON AND PROTEST

The constructive, growth-furthering use of the freedom to be aggressive can also be seen in the weaning of the young person from physical, emotional, and intellectual dependency on his parents and elders. Many of our neurotic adult patients are still trying to grow up, and their (veaning is indeed long overdue. Many of the younger patients (ages twenty-one to thirty) had to literally run away in order to extricate themselves from over-protective, over-directive, dependency-reinforcing environments. For example, California is filled with psychological refugees from

THE "NICE** MOTHER AND THE "NICE" FATHER 37

parents in the East who were dependency-nurturing and incompetent weaners. Many kept their offspring tied to them by instilling a fear of the "cold, rejecting" worid outside.

Aggression and protest is youth's protection against a growth-stunting family and school environment. It takes aggressive resistance to stop dependency reinforcers, crazy-makers, and fear evokers. It also takes aggressive energy for a young adult to wrest his psychological self away from rigid role expectations insensitively laid on him by older family members. The earlier children learn to use their freedom to be aggressive creatively, the greater their chances to fuUy develop their human potential.

AGGRESSION AND LOVE

The readers who have cats or dogs in their homes know that their animals may be in the midst of a seemingly vicious fight with each other one minute and playing together peacefully or sleeping curled next to each other the next. We feel that children too are potentially capable of intertwining aggression and love in this way in their relationships.

Two kindergarten-age boys were recently observed by the authors in heated struggle for possession of a particular building block, even though several others were available. Before anyone was even able to intervene they were already in each other's arms expressing mutual love.

A writer in a child development journal recounted the following episode. A five-year-old child came to school covered witii scratches and explained without ill feeling that he had received the scratches at the hands of his "best friend." To the child the scratches and "best friendness'* were not in the least bit contradictory.^

Parents may feel foolish when they find themselves about to discipline one child for having been mean to another when suddenly the **victim" comes to the defense of the "offender." The parent himself ends up feeling like the culprit. In the aggression-phobic consciousness of most adults it does not seem possible that two children who care for each other can also vigorously fight with each other. In the adult fantasy one child might kiU the other if there was no intervention.

It cannot be stressed too often that feelings of love are

38 THE "NICE" PEOPLE

not necessarily contradictory or in opposition to aggressive feelings within a relationship. Children therefore should not be taught, as they so often are, that they must divide their feelings, with aggressive feelings being reserved for enemies and outsiders and love feelings reserved for the family and friends. For the healthy emotional and physical development of the children, both of these sets of feelings must be allowed equal play within the family's intimate relationships.

CHAPTER 3

The ^^Niee^^ Spouses

The best guess as to "who did if is that an intimate of the victim was the culprit. In one-half to three-fourths of the homicide victims reported on in various studies, the murderer and his victim had at least some previous association, REPORT TO THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE CAUSES AND PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE ^

It is at the same time reassuring yet somewhat frightening that the chances that one will become the victim of a murder or aggravated assault are greater that it will be at the hand of someone we're familiar with than at the hand of a stranger. This fact regarding violent behavior in America is rather startling. We have been conditioned by the media to associate violence with senseless, impersonal brutality. Headlines are filled for days at a time with news about a crazed sniper, a hospital escapee, or a frantic, drug-addicted person who is on a violent spree. These kinds of murderous and assaultive behaviors lend themselves well to outcries about danger in the streets of modem cities, or the need for greater police protection. They also lend themselves well to lofty pronouncements by politicians about "law and order.'* However, the very high rate of violence among intimates and the widespread ignorance regarding ways to predict, handle, or control this phenomenon is rarely if ever given much attention. In more ways than one it strikes too close to home. Like the facts of death or cancer, it is more comforting to deny that violence is also within our experiential province.

It was with the specific intent of analyzing marital violence to discover patterns and other information that would allow for prediction and control that Dr. George

THE "NICE" PEOPLE

Bach, along with his research assistant. Dr. Roger Bach, interviewed seventy-four spouse killers around the world. Of these, thirty-eight were husbands who had killed their wives, and thirty-six were wives who had killed their husbands. The purposes of this study were several: to develop greater perspective and insight into the causes and management of intimate hostilities, to construct a probability model that would facilitate the prediction of lethal or near-lethal violence in intimate relationships, and to chart some programs or plans for violence-prevention work.2

Demographic characteristics of the spouse murderers studied can be found in Table I. All of the spouse murderers interviewed were in prisons at the time, either in the United States of America, England, France, Germany, or Greece.

Table I SPOUSE MURDER POPULATION

* Group Interview

t Individual Interview

t Intimate Aggression Questionnaires

THE "NICE" SPOUSES 41

Interviews centered around the following dimensions of the relationships:

1. Depth and mutuality of the emotional and sexual involvement.

2. Modes of sharing of stressful and joyful experiences.

3. Styles of expressing anger and other forms of aggression.

4. Reconciliation patterns.

5. Expectations and major sources of disappointment.

6. "Love frames" and "hate frames"; behavior that turned love or hate on or off.

7. Individual and mutually shared social lives.

8. Use of alcoholism and drugs.

9. Occurrence of special crises, such as suicide attempts or breakdowns.

Bach's study pointed out one fact that seems particularly noteworthy. Less than 6 percent of these spouse killers could be considered cleariy "psychotic" or severely disturbed. The four who were, rather than being impulsive acting-out types, were instead severely overcontrolled and self-hating. They were unaware of and unable to express their hostilities openly. When the dam finally broke over a minor precipitating event, they exploded.

Their self-hate throughout the marriage was intensified rather than calmed by their spouse's attempt to reach out and love them. They were unable to accept this kind of loving intimacy. Instead, they experienced it as an unbearable suffocation and demandingness.

For the other spouse murderers, recurrent patterns emerged. All of the killings involved the motivation to punish a partner for not fitting into a role, image, or situation as defined and wished for by the other. Spouse killers experienced their spouses as "spoilers" of what they had wishfully fantasized would make the relationship fulfilling. This fantasy expectation tended to foUow the stereotype of the romantic model of love. It had no room for the

42 THE **NICE»' PEOPLE

presence of conflict and aggressive interaction. The killers had dreams and idealizations about the relationship as something that they felt should be harmonious and beautiful. They were not able to feel it or accept it for what it was until the spoiled expectations loomed too large to ignore.

Spouse murderers also tended to be rigidly fixated on how the other should behave, and what satisfactions should be provided in the relationship. For example, a young divorcee, the mother of two little boys, had secretly sworn to herself before her marriage to her second husband that she would kill any husband who would be mean to her children. Indeed, she killed her husband for just such behavior three years later. Her particular "love turn-off," the behavior that would cause her to hate the man she married, was his open and direct demonstration of hostility toward her children. This is, in fact, a typical hate releaser among second- and third-time married mother-divorcees.

When the murderers began to realize that important expectations were not being fulfilled, they continued to cling tightly to their expectations nevertheless and attempted to manipulate the other person into behaving the way they wanted the person to behave.

A NARROW BASIS FOR LOVING

Spouse murderers also tended to have an unusually narrow basis for loving. That is, they seemed to require very specific behaviors from their partners in order to feel loving. Many of the murderers confessed the experience of a turning point, a specific behavior on their spouse's part that forever ruined their ability to release love and allow themselves to be loved. They began to set secret traps. "I will test her. If she comes through I will stay. If she fails, I'U leave. If she does not let me leave, I will punish her."

The romantic model of love, the tendency to idealize one's relationship rather than experience it for what it is, is commonly experienced early in a relationship when there is a strong tendency to mutually accommodate to each other's fantasy expectations. If there is a continuing and deep commitment to the fulfillment of one's rigid expectations, there will also be a tendency for the secret buildup of bitterness and rage and then a possible violent explosion.

In one such situation, a dentist had discovered that his

THE **N1CE" SPOUSES 43

wife was having an affair. In fact, she had told him of it herself. His image of her was that she was "pure" and totally loyal. Though other males always picked up on her very seductive manner, he was blind to it. Even after she told him about the affair, he tried to deny her admission of it by teUing himself it was something she made up to make him jealous. He continued to insist that she was an innocent babe in the woods. Sometime after tihat, during a party when he actually saw her physically go off into another room on an iQvolvement, his rage built rapidly, and he knifed both her and her boyfriend. He had rigid expectations as to what she should be like, and denied the reality of who and what she was when he saw it. He finally killed her for being a "spoiler" of the "beautiful thing" he insisted that they had going for them.

Spouse killers were also, on the whole, very secretive. When they felt disappointment they rarely, if ever, shared the depth of their pain or disappointment. On the few occasions when they tried, they were both embarrassed and frightened by the intensity of their hostility.

THE FORGIVE'AND'FORGET RITUAL

The vast majority of couples in this study abhorred and therefore avoided open conflict and fighting. The majority of the male offenders were accommodating guys, while their female coimterparts tended to be caring helpmates. When these couples became frustrated or angry, they would not show it. When an annoyance would momentarily break into an open argument, they would tend to withdraw and give each other the "silent treatment** rather than continuing to work on it.

Then they would soon forget or ignore the fact of the fight and use sexual involvement with each other as a forgive-and-forget ritual. Between most spouse killers and their dead spouses there had been a strong sexual attraction and frequent sexual activity. Sex was used as a strategy for avoiding conflict. After a hassle, the couple avoided talking about what the hostility outbreaks were all about. Thus they never gained or learned from these occasional hostility outbreaks. They did not know how to work toward marital improvement, nor did they even confide their troubles to others on the outside.

The final move toward lethal violence occurred when

44 THE **NICE" PEOPLE

one partner in desperation announced a decision to leave. Invariably, the attempt to leave was blocked. At this point, women had more of a tendency than men to shoot their way out in order to get rid of the cUnging vine. If the person did succeed in getting away, the loss was so frightening and unbearable to the loser left behind that the loser went after and murdered the leaver. This was especially true if the loser had determined that reconciliation was hopeless.

THE PATTERNS OF SPOUSE MURDER

The following patterns seemed most characteristic of these spouse-killing relationships:

1. Conflict evasion. Aggression phobia and the inability to work for changes openly was the rule. The more guarded partners tended to kill the more overt partners in a ratio of three to one.

2. Nontransparency of expectations. There was an unwillingness to indicate disappointment and hurt when it arose.

3. Making up without change. Sex was often used as a way to make up and cover up. However, no real changes were made in the process.

4. Severe power disparities. One person was often a ruler, while the other person was relatively passive. Interestingly, there were more kiUers among the passive group than among the tyrannical group.

5. Extreme disparities in giving and taking. A frequent pattern in these relationships was that the "taker** was insatiable while the "giver" increasingly felt worn out and unappreciated.

6. Extreme disparities in outside social contacts. One mate was invariably more socially oriented than the other. The isolated, withdrawn mate became highly threatened by the social activities of the freer, more popular mate. In the end, however, it was just as likely that the shy, isolated mate would do in the popular, socializing mate, as it was that the popular mate would get rid of the mate who was seen as blocking the fun.

7. Malicious premeditation. The majority of spouse killers, speaking with the promise of confidentiality, admitted that they had thought about killing their mate many times before they actually did it. The killers in this study

THE "NICE" SPOUSES 45

gave no support to the myth of the spontaneous, passionate killing that supposedly occurs in spouse murders. The seeds of murder were planted long before the actual act occurred

8. "Thinging** The spouse killers had radically altered their concept of their victims, transforming them in their minds from whole persons to dehumanized symbols, "dream spoilers" or "enemies," before they killed them.

9. Exit blocking. "I'll never let you go" was often meant literally in the case of these spouse killers. In general, there were more would-be leavers who killed their restrain-ers than restrainers who lethally punished their deserting partners.

TUB GOAL OF FIGHT TRAINING

There are many things to be learned from studying the most lethal form of intimate violence. These couples are only extreme examples of the potential results of conflict evasion, aggression phobia, and ignorance regarding the handling of emotions of hostility, resentfulness, and anger in intimate involvements.

The goal of fight training is to avoid this development of distorted expectations, to destroy the romantic fantasies of eternal harmony, and to overcome the fears and avoidances of angry encounters. Basic to this kind of training is the willingness to acknowledge the existence of these feelings in oneself and also one's violent potential, latent as it may seem to be. Among the ritual exercises for this purpose, taught to intimates during fight training are:

1. Expectation exercise. This requires couples to share their most intense mutual expectations. For example, Molly says to Roger, "I expect that you will never have an affair without first talking it over with me. I also expect that we will have children and that you will actively share in the raising of them. Finally, I expect that whenever you come home from a long day away from me that you will sit and talk with me before running off to your newspaper, television, or other work." The other spouse is then asked to confirm or deny his willingness to live up to these expectations.

2. Power disparity exercises. Because of the inevitability that one partner will have greater physical strength

46 THE «NICE»' PEOPLE

or a more dominating personality, effort is made to find ways of equalizing power disparities in order to allow each spouse to feel free to fully release aggression without the fear of destructive retaliation.

On a physical level we use exercises such as bataca fighting, pudiing to the wall, etc., described in the chapter "Aggression Rituals.** We train spouses to use physical handicapping in order to even up imbalances. On a verbal level, exercises such as "feedback** are useful in slowing down a more verbal, controlling spouse and thereby equalizing the difference. In teaching the Fair Hgiht Training Sjrstem, we also encourage couples to fight in the presence of others of good will to offset verbal or physical inequities.

3. "Escape hatch," The "escape hatch** is an intimacy refuge, an activity or territory to he maintained exclusive to the individual and considered taboo to the other family members. These "escape hatches** serve as a reminder that psychological interdependence can be very wearing and requires regular, periodic reprieve from contact. Typically, partners without prior "escape hatch** training are appalled by the outbursts of massive accumulations of the need for independence when they are finally honestly shared. Couples are therefore taught to signal each other and to have for themselves a list of places each can go to or things each can do in order to be alone and recuperate. Intimates are also helped to define for themselves what they will do to escape to safety when tensions become temporarily unbearable. These "escape hatches** are then to be mutually honored.

4. Recognizing and subverting "thinging" Many couples originally fall in love with each other's images and react violently when the real person underneath the fantasy tries to break through. These exercises are designed to allow individuals to see each other outside of the stereotyped images they may have of each other. This is done by having couples communicate only via feelings, not intel-lectualizations. These include openly sharing information about their worst sides and their negative feelings about the other person.

Rituals and the Fair Fight Training System discussed in other chapters are used. They are designed to subvert the kinds of communication blockages and distortions that eventuate in destructive, homicidal behavior. When there

THE "NICE" SPOUSES 47

are children, the offspring are made an integral part of the fight training and are taught the appropriate exercises. Primary, however, is the necessity for acknowledgment in each person of the existence of aggressive feelings and violent potential toward a spouse or lover. With this acknowledgment and the courage to display openly to one's intimate these feelings along with the loving ones, not only murder prevention, but the development of deeply satisfying relationships can be facilitated.

In some instances fair fight training reveals that two individuals chronically trigger off in each other their worst behaviors and retard rather than promote each other's growth. In these instances a change of partners may even be more promising than working within the existing relationship and the fight training is geared to a realistic exit. It is therefore stressed to individuals in our Fair Fight Training programs that being single or being married can be equally valid lifestyles. It would be unethical and inappropriate to use fair fight training as an artificial booster shot for decaying marital relationships.

THE EPIDEMIC OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

A reported interview with an oflScial of the FBI brought to light the fact that approximately one of every five policemen killed in the line of duty dies trying to break up a family fight. Intervention in spouse fights results in more assaults on policemen than any other kind of violent encounter. In large cities like New York, a patrolman on a beat in a residential neighborhood may spend as much as 40 percent of his time intervening in family squabbles. Therefore, a major portion of the focus in training policemen today is on the psychological aspects of domestic intervention.

The statistics suggest that all forms of domestic violence, from spouse involvement to parent-child or between relatives, have become somewhat epidemic. In at least 25 percent of all reported homicides, the victim is related to the murderer by blood or by marriage. In 1971 alone, more than two thousand Americans killed their mates. This accounted for 12 percent of the total murders committed that year. The likelihood that the murderer will be either male or female is nearly even. That is, husbands are only

48 THE "NICE" PEOPLE

slightly more likely to kill their wives than vice versa (the percentages in recent years were 54 percent to 46 percent). Male exclusivity in using this kind of initial violence in a marital relationship is therefore a myth. Though women may be less prone to committing homicide in general, when they do kill, there is a strong likelihood that their husbands will be the victims. Over half of these murders take place on weekends and holidays, when there is more togetherness and an absence of the usual escapes, such as work for the man, household chores or employment for the woman, and school for the children.

Nearly 20 percent of all aggravated assault cases also occur between husband and wife, and these are only the assaults on spouses that are reported. In as much as 90 percent of these incidents, particularly wife beating, charges are never filed or a report even written.

In the reported cases of aggravated assault, the husband is the offender more than three fourths of the time. The matter that precipitates the assault is, the majority of the time, an argument that is relatively trivial in origin.

Child murders and batterings are also on the increase and receiving considerable attention. They have become so great a problem that legislation passed recently in many states requires physicians treating battered children to file written reports. Recent statistics also show that at least two children a week are murdered by their parents in New York City alone. Most of these child victims are between a few days and nine years of age. They are killed in sundry brutal ways, such as being slanmied against walls, scalded with boiling water, thrown into incinerators, tossed off roofs or out of windows, suffocated, starved to death, kicked, beaten, strangled, even decapitated.

A recent study of mothers who had killed their babies at birth revealed some interesting psychological data on the personalities of these women. The study found that a majority of them had very passive personalities. That is, they were women who had difficulty making decisions, tended to postpone action, and used childish defenses such as denial ("I'm not really pregnant."). This resulted in their making little to no preparations for the birth of the baby or even considering the possibility of an abortion until it was too late. Infanticide was a desperation act that occurred when they were finally and inescapably hit with the reality of their situations.*

THE **NICE'' SPOUSES 49

There are a surprisingly large number of murders committed by children against a parent or another sibling. In the case of a child murdering a parent, this usually takes the form of a son protecting his mother against a raging or drunken father. Sometimes it has no inmiediate precipitating cause and may even result from severe repression and overcontrol of the child, who one day suddenly explodes and vents his rage in a murderous act. One recent psychological study suggested that children who kill within the family may be acting as unwitting agents of one of the parents. The parent unconsciously prompts the child to kill and thereby obtains the vicarious satisfaction and benefits of the act without the reponsibility. The killer-child rarely premeditates the behavior in these instances; rather, it is usually a spontanous act in which the stimulating adult inflames the child's latent hostile feelings toward the victim.*

It is not surprising that the rate of domestic violence is so high. No one can anger another as much as an intimate who is at one and the same time a source of our greatest pleasures and our deepest frustrations and hurt What is surprising, however, is that so few know how to deal with these aggressive feelings as they arise, nor how to prevent their escalation and avoid physical assaults of a severe and damaging nature. The myths of family life still revolve around beliefs in "harmonious living,*' and the emphasis is still on achieving this rather than on learning the processes of conflict resolution. Family fighting is still socially considered to be shameful and something to be hidden, and when violent arguments among intimates do occur, there is a tendency for them to mount toward higher and more destructive levels, frequently culminating in a physical attack.

It is a tragedy of the contemporary domestic scene that naifvet^ and fantasy still dominate the relationships of marriage and family life. There is a great resistance to accepting, learning to handle, and even cherishing the inherent differences and using conflict for growth. We believe that the greater the denial and lack of awareness of this aspect of intimacy the greater are the chances for violence. Therefore, all violence-prevention work must begin with the fact of the inevitability of aggression and conflict and then finding appropriate ways of expressing and handling this reality.

CHAPTER 4

The ^^Niee^^Psyeotherapist

*'The tygers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction* WM. BLAKE, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, c. 1793

During a recent dinner break Dr. Goldberg left his office to get some coffee. The street on which the coffee shop is located is heavily populated by psychotherapists—psychologist's as well as psychiatrist's offices. While seated at the counter, the writer got into a conversation with an attractive, articulate lady of about forty seated directly opposite. When he mentioned that he was a psychologist, the woman responded that she had just come from her psychotherapist's office. She then mentioned rather matter-of-factly that she had been in psychotherapy on and off since she was eighteen years of age. First it was a Freudian analyst, then a Jungian; as she became "more aware of her body," she went to a Reichian orgone therapist, and presently she was seeing an existentialist and spending weekends whenever possible at growth centers such as Esalen. Dr. Goldberg thought about that woman for several days. Was she a health-motivated growth seeker or indeed some kind of victim, engaged in an unreal search for a state of being that doesn't exist, meanwhile having her dependency needs exploited?

The authors thought and talked about this person and other individuals we know who had been in psychotherapy for five to ten years. We began to realize that possibly the traditional emphasis in the training of psychotherapists on the "total" and "unconditional" acceptance and love of the patient may be primarily for the benefit and comfort of the therapist rather than for the well-being of the patient That is, the totally accepting orientation toward the pa-

TBE **NTCE" PSYCHOTHERAPIST 51

tient, we feel, is a highly seductive one, which tends to create an unreal euphoria, a "high" similar to a drug experience, which can "hook" a patient into a long-term, dependency-nurturing and basically destructive relationship.

The unreality exists because most therapists tend to suspend or at least greatly inhibit and limit their own aggressive responses toward the patient during the therapy hour. This orientation is a line of least resistance. It is considerably easier, more "rewarding" and comforting, for the therapist to love and be loved by the client than to generate an atmosphere conducive to mobilizing the patient's aggressiveness in which the therapist stands the risk of incurring the patient's anger, resistance, and possible rejection. However, the openly aggressive interaction, we believe, in many instances might facilitate the patient's growth more rapidly and prevent the kinds of dependency that result in very long, drawn-out therapies.

Recent research studies on psychotherapy have suggested that experienced psychiatrists have more difficulty than young intern therapists in dealing with anger directed at themselves from patients. One such study even suggested that therapists tend to avoid patients who openly direct hostility toward them. Therefore, patients motivated for therapy are in a sense forced to suppress or redirect their aggressive feelings lest they alienate and lose their therapists.

This study also suggested that therapists tend to reject their patients for the same behavior the patients have been rejected for prior to entering therapy. That is, people come for psychotherapy partially because there are major distortions in their aggressive flow. Many have been nurtured by mothering figures who were incapable of tolerating aggressive behavior and who forced the child to cloak these emotional reactions to an unusual degree, particularly to deny and inhibit their angry feelings. Consequently, instead of being able to express assertive and angry responses openly, they learned to suppress these feelings and now experience depression, anxiety, fear, and guilt as a result.

The individual who is reared in a healthy mothering climate feels secure enough to hate as well as love his mother. He learns to come to terms with these inconsistencies in his feelings, to feel comfortable with the aggres-

52 THE «NICE" PEOPLE

sive feelings as well as the affectionate ones. The emotionally troubled person is usually not capable of this emotional flexibility and becomes very anxious in the face of an open display of anger.

In therapy, ^erefore, patients need to be encouraged to direct their angry feelings openly and directly against their therapist. They can thereby learn that their therapist can survive these outbursts and that the patient will not be rejected in the process. In a therapy atmosphere where the therapist is all-accepting and all-loving, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, for the patients to express these kinds of feelings without at the same time feeling that they are behaving "inappropriately" or neurotically. In turn, the therapist must feel free to share his anger at the patient without feeling that this is a breach of professional conduct. Therefore, patients also must be re-educated in terms of their expectations of what appropriate professional behavior by a psychotherapist is.

THE THERAPIST AS A SYMBOL

The aggression-avoidance patterns of many therapy orientations cause them to resemble a form of religion. Traditionally, one enters a church or synagogue with "loving,** "caring," "understanding,** and other "positive** emotions. The priest or rabbi suppresses "negative'* emotions within himself and carefully avoids confrontation or conflict with his following lest he alienate them or be considered un-spiritual. The reader is asked to compare this orientation with the following description of the role of the analyst from a book entitled Psychoanalysis and Dasein Analysis written by noted Swiss psychoanalyst Dr. Medard Boss in the early 1960s:

Genuine psychotherapeutic eros, in other words, must be an otherwise never practiced selflessness, self-restraint and reverence before the patient*s existence and uniqueness. These qualities must not be shaken or perturbed by uncooperative, indifferent or hostile behavior on the part of the patient. Psychotherapeutic eros must go beyond even Christian humility in its selflessness, its modesty and its triumph over egotism. ... A genuinely mature analyst will be able to analyze his patients in the exemplary way in which a cer-

TBDE "NICE" PSYCHOTHERAPIST 53

tain hermit of the Himalayas cared for the flowers of his small garden. When praised for the extraordinary beauty of that little piece of ground, he sunply remarked that he permitted the flowers to unfold into their full blossoming—not for his own sake and aesthetic pleasure, but only for the delight of his God. Patients with whom an analyst is not capable of relating in this way, to some extent at least, should better be sent to another analyst.*^

The orientation Dr. Boss demands in his book, we feel, is an extreme of what is emotionally unauthentic and unattainable. The pressure to behave this way forces the psychotherapist to behave as an image, a symbol, rather than as a real person.

Professional psychological publications that have sought to describe the attributes of an effective psychotherapist invariably stress the so-called "positive," "loving" qualities. These include accurate empathy, unconditional positive regard, self-discipline, concreteness, and genuineness. Dr. Cari Rogers, the well-known psychotherapist and creator of his own form of psychotherapy, was one of the original and major proponents of the philosophy that the therapeutic relationship should stress the total and unconditional acceptance of the client. Some professionals in the field of psychology have even gone so far as to suggest that anybody, regardless of their educational and professional training, can function effectively as a psychotherapist if he has these positive qualities.

The "good" client preferred by many psychotherapists is also notable for being nonaggressive. An individual who is resistant, confrontive, or freely aggressive with authority figures, who openly and comfortably challenges rather than simply accepts something as true just because it was spoken by a doctor, and who is not comfortable in a compliant role, would not be considered a prime candidate for psychotherapy.

Psychotherapy is a relatively young science, barely seventy-five years old. It has hardly begun to come to grips with the issues and processes of aggression. Psychoanalysis as developed originally by Sigmund Freud relied heavily upon the distant, passive attitude of the analyst. The ideal

* Authors* italics.

54 THE **NICE" PEOPLE

analytic patient was described as bright, verbal, jSnancially successful, highly dependable, responsible, and nonrebel-lious. In the analytic process the analyst assumed an extremely authoritarian role and the patient passively took all the cues from him. The psychoanalyst related to the patient in a basically detached and withdrawn style. Every utterance by the analyst was carefully weighed by him beforehand for its potential impact on the patient. Traditionally, analysts perceived anger on the part of their patients toward them as products of a neurotic transference, and their own anger toward the patient as the product of their unresolved problems.

THE DISCHARGE OF EMOTIONS

Contemporary psychotherapies such as bioenergetics, Rolfing, and the "primal scream*' therapy 2 facilitate an intense emotional discharge, often of an aggressive nature. The patients explode with rage. However, the angry and aggressive discharge, particularly in the "primal scream," is experienced regressively. The patient is shadow boxing with demons of the past. Our general therapeutic approach, however, is designed to facilitate and teach aggressive expression in the service of the present, within here-and-now relationships rather than as a way of vomiting out the past. Patients who have undergone the more regressive therapies claim to experience profound changes within a relatively short period of time. From what is known about the destructive effect of repressed aggression on the body and the emotions, it is not surprising that these dramatic results are being claimed and attained. However, primarily because these are therapies that focus on the discharge and expression of these strong, angry emotions at nonpresent figures of the past, such as "Monmiy" and "Daddy," we would predict that the changes or "cures" would be shortlived and that the symptoms would in most instances return after the patient quit therapy. The reason for this is that the aggressive feelings expressed were not done so on an immediate, personal basis between the therapist and the patient as a part of the normal flow of an interpersonal relationship.

Dr. Alexander Lowen, one of the chief living proponents of the psychotherapy called bioenergetics, makes the profound point, with which the writers fully concur, that

THE "NICE" PSYCHOTEIERAPISr 55

"The expression of affection is not to be trusted until the repressed negative feelings have been vented. Until this happens the positive expression is in most cases a defense against the underlying negativity. If it is encouraged, that is, if the emphasis is placed upon the giving and receiving of love, the repressed negativity becomes further entrenched and will appear as resentments at the first disappointment Further, the muscular tensions that bind an individual cannot be reduced or eliminated without recourse to the more violent forms of expression. After a violent outburst, the road is open for a tender contact." ^

Lowen facilitates powerfully aggressive outbursts and the discharge of violent, hostile emotions by having the patients pound on foam mattresses, shouting "Nol" and *'I won'tl" repeatedly until they are able to say it with total body believability while screaming and kicking in protest. Lowen states that "It is the rare person who can easily express negative and hostile feelings. These feelings are severely inhibited early in life, with the result that in adulthood they are manifested only indirectly as stubbornness, spite and sarcasm." ^

The major reservation the writers have regarding these therapies is the indirect way they seem to deal with the expression of aggression. This is reflected in this description by Lowen of a bioenergetic group experience. "In bio-energetic group therapy these feelings of negation and others of hostility are not directed personally at any group members. The subject is asked to express feelings, not act them out. Of course, it can become personal, but even in this case the action is always directed at the bed. One pounds the bed or beats the bed, never another person." ^ The aggressive expression is being directed at absent figures. Consequently, the patient is not learning to experience and constructively express these feelings on a here-and-now, I-thou basis.

In general, the writers feel that contemporary therapies that facilitate the expression of intense, aggressive emotion must ultimately fall short if the aggressive discharge is directed at nonpresent figures of the past, the discharge of aggressive feelings is seen as part of a "treatment" rather than as part of the normal, interpersonal flow, and the therapist personally sets himself apart rather than allowing himself also to be a real target for these outbursts. The patient is again not learning to experience love and aggres-

56 THE «*NICE" PEOPLE

sion toward the same nurturing figure. Rather, he tends to relate to the therapist as a god to be adored and worshiped.

FIGHT WiTH YOUR THERAPIST

Dr. Bach, the originator of marathon therapy, encourages his patients to express their anger freely toward him, and he in turn has always felt free to express his against the patient. In a recent paper he wrote:

/ will lose my temper, sometimes blowing up at the whole group or some particular individual in a near-raging manner. People in the group who did not like this display of angry, "irrational" outbursts on my part have told me off about it in various groups. . . . Peggy, my wife, has observed, often with much group support, "George, you sometimes attack untherapeuti-cally. Sometimes you are just plain mean. You especially blast people you like because you expect more than they deliver. When they fall short of your image of them you get rough. You are also very rough on people whom I know you would like to impress and be loved by. When one of those people does not think you are *up to snuff* in some situation during a marathon, you get furious with himl Let any one of those people whom you are drawn to confront you with an imperfection and you go into a mouth-foaming fulmi-nationl You can't tell me that's therapeutic, cutting people to ribbons, especially since you yourself can't take it. I think all you 'attack therapists' are long on dishing it out and very short on taking it. That goes for you and your colleagues." Then she named several colleague friends practicing attack therapy.

In defense of myself I reply that I have never seen anyone devastated by me or by the group's attack. I insist that my so-called irrational "rage" is both a form of caring about my relation to the other person and of catharsis for my own tension. I feel better after spewing some hostility. The spewed-on has the privilege to spew back at me. It is a great experience for anybody to counterinsult me, and I can take it. An occasional, rotten, name-calling spree is just my silly way of having a temper tantrum when people I care about do, say, or think opposite from what I had expected of

THE "NICE" PSYCHOTHERAPIST 57

them! When people occasionally see me in such a ridiculous, rage-olic moment, they are thoroughly impressed forevermore that I am nowhere near godlike!

I take on anyone who tries to hide from encountering me and/or the group. I firmly insist on a confrontation with group members who obfuscate their persons! I am allergic to people who say, "I don't know," when they are asked to tell us how they feel about the group or about me or about themselves. If you don't know your own feelings, who the hell do you think will ever know them? Stop playing *'I am a mystery." Do not obfuscate! I refuse trying to divine you or guess what makes you tick. You have to come forth and own up to your feelings free and clear. At least you must try!

Sometimes, when the group like a wolf pack attacks one single member, I may not join the group. They are doing fine without me. But I would not protect an individual from group attack because handling oneself alone in relation to total group pressure is a significant growth experience. I do not wish to spoil this experience for anyone by "protecting" him from an attacking group. Often I let the fighting be done by members vis-^-vis each other without getting into the act. Because I sometimes get tired of fighting I sort of recoup in peace by letting others carry on. I will share my "spectator" feelings about it later on.

As the marathon grows and people become more real and authentic, I can afford to relax my militant attitude and give more of my gentle, supporting side. But we must all first releam how to fight to regain our genuineness. Only after this are we then ready to share love. In the homestretch of a marathon, there is usually no fighting at aU because the wrath did go. . . .«

THE Z'PROCESS

In recent years some other therapies have also worked toward achieving aggressive flow within the therapeutic relationship and with considerable success. Dr. Robert Zas-low has used a technique he calls Z-process with autistic and otherwise disturbed children. In working with these children, Dr. Zaslow initially assumes total control over the

58 THE "NICE'' PEOPLE

child by holding it in a cradle position. If the child is too big, assistants are used to help in holding it. According to Zaslow, since the child acts like a baby, he is being held like a baby. Holding the child in this position incites intense, rageful resistances and hostility toward the therapist. The therapy that ensues, too complex to describe here, releases an enormous amount of this rage and forces the child into a confrontation with his feelings and with the therapist and disrupts the child's usual passive-aggressive "sickness" style of relating. As 2^process therapy progresses, the child's responses move from increasing angry arousal to violent rage and eventually to affectionate attachment and appropriate behavior. Zaslow's therapeutic achievement reinforces our notion that genuine affection is facilitated by the release of repressed aggression. Therapists who work with children and use "love** techniques solely, waste enormous amounts of time, as the child is really incapable of responding to and returning such a response prior to a rage expulsion.

Zaslow cogently points out (and the authors share his perception) that "Most therapeutic systems falter precisely because they fail to develop rational and systematic therapeutic techniques for handling resistances and because they are incapable of handling the full expression of aggression, anger and rage." ^ Indeed, it seems that many therapists are afraid of intense, angry explosions on the part of their patients. Before patients can learn to become comfortable with their aggression, therapists will have to become comfortable with their own and that of their patients when they are the targets of these feelings.

Constructive aggressive interchanges between therapist and patient and among the individual members are facilitated and achieved best we feel within the group therapy medium. That is, the fears individuals have of destroying or being destroyed by rage and the loss of control over these feelings are softened and checked by the presence of other group members. Dr. Bach has pioneered in the use of aggressive confrontation techniques with short- and marathon-length groups. Research with approximately two thosuand individuals who have gone through these experiences suggests that according to the feedback from participants, aggressive confrontation encounters were experienced as the most helpful and change-producing aspects of the experiences.8

THE **NICE'' PSYCHOTHERAPIST 59

The aggression formats have also been effectively utilized with married couples, singles, families, schools, and in office situations. The remarkable finding of these aggression-oriented group experiences is the recurring phenomenon of genuine warmth, caring, and intimacy that emerges after the constructive aggression interchanges. These group experiences bdie the commonly held notion that the free expression of these "negative" emotions drives people apart. Instead, it confirms the views of the psychologists who recently wrote that "life itself without confrontation can become directionless, passive and impotent." • The person who remains unchallenged tends to remain locked within himself.

THE AGGRESSIVE CONFRONTATION APPROACH

The aggressive confrontation approach in groups brings the therapist and patient into more immediate and real contact with themselves and others. In the group they are challenged to break through discrepancies between what they say and what they do. Confrontation, rather than being irresponsible or self-indulgent behavior by the therapist, is the ultimate way a therapist can take responsibility for providing the patient with an authentic relationship. The therapist thus steps down from the godlike posture and allows himself to be a target for the client.

This aggressive confrontation orientation has been particularly effective with drug addicts, a group with whom traditional psychotherapy has been almost totally ineffective. In a dialogue between Mr. Charles E. Diederich, the guiding spirit and founding father of Synanon and Dr. George Bach, the pros and cons of an approach that has been termed "attack therapy" were discussed.^^ The participants engage in intense, aggressive confrontation that often produces remarkable results.

The late Abraham Maslow, after participating in a marathon attack group, commented, "What I have read about Synanon, as well as what I saw last night and this afternoon, suggests that the whole idea of the fragile teacup which might crack or break, the idea that you mustn't say a loud word to anybody because it might traumatize him or hurt him, the idea that people cry easily or crack easily or commit suicide or go crazy if you shout at them—that

60 THE **NICE" PEOPLE

maybe these ideas are outdated. ... I heard from a friend of mine, who is very much interested in Synanon, about a drug addict who had been through this kind of thing and who, for the first time in his hfe, had experienced real intimacy, real friendship, real respect This was his first experience of honesty and directness, and he felt for the first time in his life that he could be himself and that people wouldn't kill him for it." ^^

TBE THERAPIST AS INDIRECT AGGRESSOR

Because the traditional role behavior of the psychotherapist is so heavily embedded in notions about being loving, caring, warm, and understanding, and because direct expressions of aggressive feelings are considered taboo, the psychotherapy relationship lends itself to considerable contamination by indirect, hidden aggression. For one, therapists go to great lengths to project the attitude that they are not in almost total control of the relationship, not in a position of almost total power and not authoritarian figures. And yet even a superficial examination of the relationship readily reveals that the therapist is in fact heavily in control and calling most of the shots. This is often done, however, in subtle ways. By his nods, his comments, his gestures, and his expressions of interest, the therapist steers the interaction into any direction he wishes. We feel it is particularly destructive for a therapist to deny the immense power he has within the therapeutic relationship.

The aggression that is suppressed takes many alternate forms. The traditionally withdrawn, nonemotional, and guarded posture of the psychoanalyst can be interpreted as one such form of indirect aggression. The anxious, unsure patient looks to the analyst for some feedback, cues as to what the analyst is thinking. When the analyst remains poker-faced and says nothing, the patient's anxiety is increased. Often the patient will be inclined to read the analyst's mind and to imagine the worst. "He probably thinks I*m crazy and doesn't want to tell me," is a typicd patient fantasy.

The therapy relationship is a very loaded one in a power sense, with the power being almost exclusively in the therapist's hands. If the patient senses hostility, boredom, disinterest, or morbid curiosity coming from the analyst or

THE "NICE" PSYCHOTHERAPIST 61

therapist, the latter can deny it and lay it back on the patient. "You're projecting your own feelings," may be a typical response. Few therapists will openly and directly admit to being bored, angry, disinterested, or voyeuristically motivated while their patients are talking. The resistance of the therapist to sharing these aggressive feelings and responses openly is really more for the benefit and comfort of the therapist than the patient. The patient will probably sense the therapist's boredom through the therapist's nonverbal body and facial cues anyway. The therapist's denial of these feelings will only serve to further hamper and abort the patient's attempt at achieving an emotional interpersonal reality.

THE THERAPIST IS NOT YOUR SOCIAL FRIEND

Though the therapist communicates a totally accepting manner, the patient knows that this "total acceptance" is contingent on the payment of the fee, and yet this contingency is rarely verbalized or acknowledged to be what it really is. Many therapists seek to create the illusion that the relationship is one of genuine intimacy and love. Undoubtedly genuine affection may be present. However, one does not pay friends for their time, nor is a real friendship confined to a specific hour on a given day. In reality, the therapist is not the client's friend nor is it likely that he ever will be. It is a professional transaction like any other, contingent on payment of the fee and the therapist's schedule, and should be recognized openly as such by the patient. Any intimation of deep friendship is a travesty of that word and a destructive illusion, which may eventually produce a sense of deep betrayal and bitterness on the part of the patient.

Therapists who speak vaguely of the patient's "deep-rooted" problems which, according to them, may take years to work out, are engaging in a fonn of hidden aggression known as "mystification." That is, rarely do they inform the patient of precisely what these so-called problems are. Nor do they ever make any promises that if the patient in fact continues to come for **years" that the "problems" will be alleviated. The pronouncement merely has the effect of nurturing a profound anxiety and dependency.

62 THE "NICE" PEOPLE

The psychotherapeutic relationship is a loaded one in still another way. The therapist topically only takes responsibility for the patient's improvement and progress, not his failures or resistances. That is, if the patient responds well to the therapeutic process, the good results are attributed to the fine skills of the therapist. If, however, the patient is not improving, the responsibility is placed squarely on him. The patient is told he is resisting change or just isn't '*ready."

In 1962 the Group Psychotherapy Association of South-em California organized a conference, chaired by Dr. Bach, on the theme of aggression in therapy. Eh". Carl A. Whitaker, an eminent and innovative psychiatrist, and trainer of ps>'chiatric residents, discussed some of the typical waj's by which ps>xhiatrists tr>' to conceal their **hidden hostilities," which they feel but are afraid to express openly.

'Typical of some highly trained professional psychoanalysts is to hide their hostility with what I call 'hot* interpretations where the patient doesn't even understand what we're sa\'ing. I am not even sure we do sometimes, we just put one and one together and get four and say to the patient now this is how it is. Boredom is another one of

the most subtle way's of hiding hostility, deep bitter hostility." 12

THE THERAPiST AS YiCTIM

In many way's the therapist is also a \ictim of the aggression taboos of our society. The therapist who aggressively confronts may be accused of acting unprofessionally. The typical patient expects the doctor to have a professional demeanor characterized by a controlled, even-tempered, soft-spoken attitude, and most patients would flee from a therapist who was open and confrontive with his feelings.

The patient who is upset by a therapist's confrontations may retaliate in various indirect way-s. He may play the part of a helpless victim who has been callously attacked. Or he may begin to act sicker or threaten to quit therapy altogether. The ultimate way of indirectly punishing a therapist is for the patient to attempt suicide, thereby hoping to make the therapist feel guilty or tarnish his reputation. Many therapists therefore avoid being open and

THE "NICE" PSYCHOTHERAPIST 63

direct with their patients for fear of these threats. To release themselves from these binds, the psychological and psychiatric professionals must retrain the patients, by beginning to become real people in the therapy room themselves and refusing to collude with the patients by playing out the image they believe the patient expects.

SEX BETWEEN THERAPIST AND PATIENT

In recent years considerable attention has been paid to the apparently increasing phenomenon of sex between therapist and patient. Almost exclusively this takes place between a male therapist and a female patient and not vice versa. Some authors, such as Dr. Martin Shepard in his book titled The Love Treatment: Sexual Intimacy Between Patients and Psychotherapists, maintain that in some instances sexual intimacy can be a therapeutic part of the relationship.^^ Others, however, have labeled this kind of behavior as rank exploitation and the result of unresolved emotional problems on the part of the doctor. Undoubtedly, the meanings of such a physical involvement are many and complex. On one level, however, this behavior can be seen in terms of its hidden aggression aspects.

A recent professional research paper discussing the personality characteristics of the seductive therapist described him as '^vithdrawn and introspective, studious, passive, shy . . ." 1* Interestingly enough, in a recent book entitled Women and Madness by Dr. Phyllis Chesler, a number of women who had had affairs with their therapists were described as follows: **. . . they all blamed themselves for any 'mistreatment* by men . . . and they were slow to express anger." t^*^

It does not require great psychological sophistication to recognize the covert aggressive aspects of the typical therapist-patient sexual relationship. In general it is one of master-slave; total control (the therapist) and total dependence (the patient). It is invariably the therapist who decides if, when, and where the sexual encounter will occur, how it will be performed, and how often and at what point it will be terminated. Should the encounter turn out to be generally imsatisfactory, it is the patient who is more

t Authors* italics.

64 THE "NICE" PEOPLE

vulnerable and prone to blame herself. If it is a success it will undoubtedly be attributed to the therapeutic powers of the doctor. Furthermore, the patient is not encouraged to assert her needs directly, and her demands are often not paid attention to. Typically, she is too self-conscious to make her feelings known, for every utterance may be placed under analytic scrutiny. For example, should she express resentment over extreme limits of the relationship, this protest could be thrown back at her as being a manifestation of her problem. Or, in passive-aggressive style, the therapist might not even acknowledge or respond to this feeling.

In general, all feelings she expresses, despite the intimate nature of the experience, may be treated objectively as "material" to be explored rather than as a legitimate expression of an I-thou feeling. It is truly a no-win situation for the patient. As Dahlberg pointed out, ". . . it's too easy to sleep with a patient. They come for help and must put their faith in us. They have no alternative. If they hold back too much, there won't be any therapeutic alliance and there won't be any therapy. The cards are all in our hands." ^^

Sex between therapist and patient under the guise of "treatment" for frigidity or oAer sexual disorders is exploitative, phony, and downright hostile. For one, sexual problems are frequently merely symptoms of underlying identity and self-image problems or expressions of indirect aggression and infantile anxieties. When there is a legitimate basis for symptom treatment, such as when sexual problems are largely the result of early repression and trauma, ethical practice would require treatment on the order of the Masters and Johnson model.^'^ That is, the therapist should involve a male who is a part of the patient's love life and could provide an available, involved, and more complete relationship or a trained male surrogate.

The psychotherapist who involves himself sexually under the pretense of treatment would also be ethically bound to carry the treatment out to its successful completion in the interest of the patient's needs. This is rarely if ever the way it happens. Instead, the therapist often suddenly abandons the sexual relationship, or, as in the case of a number of Dr. Chesler's women, abandons the patient totally and stops communicating with her in any way. Invariably, this results in a painfully traumatic experience