Power Matters - Pt. 2 - The Partnership Way

Writer's note: In sharing this 2^nd installment in the series - Power Matters - I am aware that, especially for OEN, this is a long piece. I considered this and decided to simply submit it with the goal of offering a map of a transformation that we, as a species, desperately need. It is intended to be a "deep dive" into the alternative to the dominator system.

One image I have is that of drilling down at deeper and deeper levels to explore this critical matter.

A second image is that of someone spreading out a large territorial map on a table, allowing a bird's eye glimpse of a wide expanse. My hope is, given that we usually have limited time and multiple demands on our attention, you will feel free to pick and choose anything here which piques your interest.

Prologue

My first real glimpse of a "partnership" way of being happened as a teenager when I was blessed with a few experiences"with the aid of psychedelics"which transcended the consensus reality within which I lived. I experienced that it was possible to see and communicate "essence to essence," or if you will, soul to soul with another person.

These experiences led me to explore Martin Buber and his description of the "I-Thou" relationship. They also caused me to become keenly interested in the ways people avoid deep connections through "game-playing" and "impression management." I began to realize that these were attempts at manipulating and thereby dominating others.

Looking back, it's clear that I was becoming aware of western man's sense of alienation, lack of community and inability to find ways of organizing society for human ends. This awareness sent me on a search.

Years later in my 1^st job out of graduate school I worked under a clinical supervisor who was mentoring schizophrenic patients and their families with knowledge, skills, mutual support groups, and therapeutic experiences. Carol Smith maintained a laser-like focus on helping both our patients and our team to create health in the midst of chronic illness.

As I described in "Forward into the Past," (OEN), if there was a one-word description of Carol's focus, it was "empowerment." She used every situation to support and empower each member of my team to be as creatively and compassionately effective as possible. And since she had no need to dominate others, she demonstrated partnership as a way of being.

Around the same time another woman whose wisdom I had sought out said, to me, "Blair, you shine by helping others shine." The universe seemed to be giving me a message: I was receiving lessons in taking whatever power I had and facilitating others in developing their own sense of personal power and worth.

I would later test these principles by applying what I had learned in work with other politically powerless populations: including prison inmates, people dealing with addictions and hospitalized elderly dementia patients.

I now am working with higher functioning clients in private practice. Empowerment is still the name of the game.

Introduction

The previous essay, "Power Matters-Domination," began by describing Riane Eisler's conception of two radically different ways of seeing and using power. And two different principles of social organization.

In the dominator model, which is based on social ranking, "either you're the boss or I am." This is the "power-over-others" model. And usually, one is either a winner and or a loser. In this system, it's understandable that there is plenty of powerlessness to spread around; it's baked into the cake.

But there are two avenues through which we can feel more powerful.

On the first road I only need expand by conquering territory, nations, women, men.

There is also a complementary strategy to gain power: allowing myself to be swallowed up by something larger and mightier. A person relinquishes responsibility and places themselves into the hands of a "higher power." Although actually choosing to be overpowered, we gain a sense of strength and at times even ferocity, when tor the moment, we bask in aura of our formidable fearless leader.

The essence of the domination system (also known as "authoritarianism") is controlling others, motivated by a fear that if we don't control others, they will control us.

Arguing that partnership is a viable and realistic alternative to domination, Eisler has drawn on reinterpreted archeological evidence to argue that, until very recently in history a partnership mode of relating to other beings and the world has been the focal point of human life.

Today, a growing number of people are coming to realize that the dominator model itself is a dead end. That our foolish obsession with the conquest of nature is creating a profoundly endangered planet. And that the penultimate achievement of the dominator way - the possibility of nuclear war - is literally a dead end.... for everyone and everything.

Thus, a "paradigm of partnership" is emerging - in which men, women, and nature are linked rather than ranked. It can be called the "power-with-others" or "mutual-power" model.

Partnership is motivated not by fear but by a desire, whether consciously articulated or not, to realize the possibilities inherent in ourselves and others.

It is the polar opposite of one person dominating another, a model which has existed as a subterranean paradigm for Millenia.

Eisler's describes a massive change in world culture that took place some five thousand years ago - leading to what Philip Slater has called, "the mega-culture of authoritarianism." Slater concurs with Eisler that authoritarianism began to appear as a dominant social form in many parts of the world 5 or 6,000 years ago - in the Far East, North Africa, India, and the Middle East - and has continued to be the prevailing mega-culture ever since, spreading to Europe, Africa, Meso-America and most of Asia.

"We begin to find kings, social classes, slaves, standing armies, weaponry, torture, and human sacrifice. Gods are put over goddesses, wives begin to pay deference to husbands and sons to their fathers. Authoritarianism may in fact be defined as a highly centralized social organization developed in order to exercise coercive control over unwilling participants in the community."

Initially, I will be describing the macro-level shift toward partnership. Later in this essay I'll try to boil this idea down to basics by examining the texture and flavor of a two-person partnership in more detail.

The reality is that for Millenia our societies have been based on obedience and a power-over dynamic. We have been conditioned from early childhood, through schooling that has reinforced compliance and acquiescence - often punishing students for questioning procedures or authority.

We also need to realize that, after five thousand years of the dominator model, creating a partnership-based society will be like learning to walk again after a debilitating illness. In this sense it is not an exaggeration to consider that we need "rehabilitation," or that as a species we will be a bit like a child taking its first steps.

So, I see this exploration as "starting from scratch," assuming nothing, and slowly penetrating into the possibility of building back better.

Where We Came From: We are a "Partnership Species"

As a species, according to anthropological and archeological evidence, 99% of our time on earth - literally millions of years - was spent in small hunter-gatherer bands. We moved with the seasons, living with one another very close to nature. We gathered the food that grew wild, hunted in packs as wolves do, and fished. And in this tribal existence our survival depended more than anything else on cooperation - on our social intelligence.

The Abrahamic religions may be speaking of these times when referring to the days of Eden.

Our cultural evolution continued as we discovered that we could use tools.

Although estimates differ, there is a general consensus that our departure from Eden gradually took place between approximately 10,000 B.C.E. and 3500 B.C.E., as people in Europe and the Middle East began to plant crops and nurture flocks. We settled into agricultural communities and began to develop the material and social technologies distinctive to our species. We learned to domesticate plants and animals, store food for lean times, design and construct buildings, weave clothing and baskets, make pots, design and construct buildings, and organize under institutions of law, government, and religion.

In a closely reasoned argument, Eisler maintains that compelling evidence now exists from excavations of Neolithic human communities (ca. 10,000 BC). that in this era a "partnership" form of social organization was the norm.

It is hypothesized is that in a sweeping turn of events (over several millennia), early partnership societies may have been overrun and conquered by warlike nomadic bands, whose own mode of social organization was based on the dominator model. Bit by bit partnership societies lost ground such that by four thousand years ago, an historic defeat of partnership culture had occurred around the world.

Eisler stresses that a fundamental characteristic of the conquering civilization was that it "valued the destructive power of the blade."

"[The invaders} characteristically acquired wealth, not by developing technologies of production, but through ever more effective technologies of destruction."

This overarching worldview has been with us ever since.

Theory

Based on evidence drawn from disciplines ranging from archaeology and anthropology to linguistics and DNA studies, a new, more accurate picture of human cultures through time and place is emerging.

Eisler's theory of cultural evolution is sometimes referred to as Cultural Transformation Theory. Drawing from new approaches such as self-organizing systems, non-linear dynamics, and chaos theories, it is based on new understandings of how complex living systems maintain themselves and how they can undergo transformative change during periods of significant disequilibrium, such as our present era.

We are beginning to grasp that, while technological advances are rapidly destabilizing our old patterns, they do not by themselves determine the direction of cultural change. The overall direction of cultural evolution depends on whether we have a partnership- or a domination-oriented social structure. If you change the deeper cultural assumptions that govern the development and use of technology, you change the impact of those technologies. However, accomplishing a shift of this magnitude will require a momentous reevaluation of cultural values and structures.

Eisler's research shows that whole-systems change is fundamentally driven by shifts in the configuration of our human-to-human and human-to-Earth relationships, including our families, our language and our categories for thinking, as well as our beliefs and the stories we learn about "human nature."

This research differs from earlier approaches in significant ways. It looks at the whole of our history, including prehistory, and at the whole of our social systems, rather than marginalizing or ignoring the majority of humanity, women and children.

It also takes into account findings from neuroscience showing that what children experience or observe shapes the development of our human brains, and hence how adults think, feel, and act - including how we vote. It is multidisciplinary, and includes new subjects like gender studies, making it possible to see connections that have been invisible.

What Partnership is Not

The alternative to "power-over" kinds of relationships is not some sort of homogeneous, wishy-washy world in which no one expresses differences or disagreements, and where everyone is always "nice." In fact, strong, healthy, respectful confrontation between parties is sometimes essential.

Especially in groups - when establishing ground rules regarding the quality of relationships - unless we are clear about the difference between power-over and power-with mindsets, it is all too easy to fall back on struggles for power, even (and perhaps especially) among people who would like to think of themselves as working together in a partnership style. We need a to be aware of what goes into real partnership.

In addition, it is sometimes assumed that partnership stands for cooperation and domination for competition. Not so. Partnership doesn't mean eliminating competition since competition can often be beneficial. And let's remember that domination systems have thrived on cooperation. In a dominator system people cooperate for the purpose of eliminating their adversaries. The Nazis cooperated with great efficiency in achieving their goals.

The Shift - The Great Turning

Before exploring partnership more deeply, let's cut to the chase. Eisler is talking about an immense cultural shift, which will impact every dimension of our lives.

"Power Matters Pt. 1," outlined the dominator system. It is clear that this mode of being is unworkable for many reasons. In "leaving Eden" we had learned to dominate nature and our fellow humans. In time imperial civilizations emerged. Kings and rulers organized great empires under their personal auspices where the wealth created by nature and human labor was squandered on wars and opulent luxuries. Some five thousand years later, the ruthless domination and exploitation of Empire has reached the limits of what Earth's societies and living systems can endure.

Even if the authoritarian way was useful for mobilizing humanity's stunning technological potentials -which are now bringing us to the edge of planetary civilization - the dominator way, with its leveraged capacity for violence has also brought us to the edge of "an eve of destruction."

There us no question that we have created dazzling achievements; but we have also been quite successful in creating an impending, massive eco-crisis. (For more on this, see my piece, "Toward a Mature Global Civilization" on OEN). It is becoming more and more evident that we are already staring into an abyss. Put simply, we are like the sorcerer's apprentice and the old ways of doing things must go -before it's too late (if this is not already the case).

We face an epic choice and for us even to have a chance of accomplishing this prodigious shift, we will need a tremendous outpouring of social creativity.

Authoritarian institutions require conformity and obedience. But, if we wish to turn this ship around, what we need today is original thinking by many people. A partnership orientation will be essential.

What Does This Alternative look Like in Practice?

Eisler's work reveals four essential and interconnected cornerstones for shifting away from the legacy of domination, and once again building the partnership systems needed to support human survival (and thriving) on our planet:

• Family and Childhood Relations
• Gender Relations
• Economic Relations
• Narratives and Language

Partnership Parenting

The quality of family relationships and social structures are an essential underpinning of partnership systems. The family is a "mold-maker" and template for politics, economics, and other social institutions. Findings from psychology and neuroscience show that the degree of partnership or domination in our foundational human relations between women and men, and between parents and children directly affects how our brains develop.

Research suggests that domination-style parenting engenders childhood stresses that often lead to behavioral, cognitive, emotional, and physical health issues. Domination-style parenting has been linked to violence and all its economic and social costs, as children act out the dynamics of abuse and power-over which is normalized in domination system families.

To plant the seeds of cooperation, democracy and partnership, we need to provide a more evolved haven for children, and to facilitate the development of awareness and caring for the ecological context - our true nest. Clearly, this will require much dedicated effort at the individual, policy, and institutional levels.

There is increasing recognition of the urgent need for a deep systemic reassessment of what we are teaching our children. Based on multidisciplinary research conducted by Riane Eisler over three decades, her book, Tomorrow's Children presents a new integrated model for education. At the very least a "well-rounded education" will need to include emotional intelligence tailored for each age group - Edgar Morin's "Seven Complex Lessons in Education for the Future" (UNESCO) is another highly relevant resource expressing a similar vision.

In her book The Real Wealth of Nations, Eisler argues that the great problems of our time - such as poverty, inequality, war, terrorism and environmental degradation - are consequences of a flawed economic system which advocates dysfunctional priorities and misallocated resources.

Eisler suggests that a sustainable and equitable economy is possible - one that places value on our greatest assets: people and our natural environment. She invites the reader to contemplate a "caring economics" that transcends traditional structures such as capitalism and socialism and offers enormous benefits. Eisler also describes business practices and policies and suggests practical steps for their implementation.

Another dimension:

How we use language is crucial in the shift toward partnership systems. Domination-based words and phrases have been built in to our everyday use of the English language and influence the way we perceive the world. Words and ways of thinking are rooted in the unconscious mind. The examples below are a sampling of the many phrases that can evolve from a context of domination to one of partnership in our everyday use of language.

Language matters.

• I really killed it/crushed it/nailed it > I really brought it to life
• Bullet points > Itemized list
• Mankind > Humankind

While we're at it let's take a look take two examples where partnership is actually being implemented in the gnarly matter of criminal justice. Both are currently functioning alternatives to the present system of incarceration.

The first, the rapidly growing Restorative Justice Movement poses questions such as: "How can we increase offenders' awareness of the injury to the victim? Can we involve the offender in 'repairing' (in some fashion) the harm they have done? Can the community be involved in the process of holding offenders accountable? How might the community send messages of disapproval, while not banishing offenders?"

Carolyn Boyes-Watson states that Restorative Justice is:

"...a growing social movement to institutionalize peaceful approaches to harm, problem-solving and violations of legal and human rights. These range from international peacemaking tribunals such as the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission to innovations within the criminal and juvenile justice systems, schools, social services and communities. Rather than privileging the law, professionals and the state, restorative resolutions engage those who are harmed, wrongdoers and their affected communities in search of solutions that promote repair, reconciliation and the rebuilding of relationships."

The second alternative can be found today in Brazil - a prison without guards, run essentially by the inmates themselves, where the rate of re-offense once the sentence is completed is under 4%.

Here the inmates are called "recuperandos" - men who are recovering. The umbrella organization, which has final responsibility for the prison, is staffed almost exclusively by volunteers, and is known as APAC: The Association for the Care and Protection of the Convicted. Doctors, dentists, and psychologists also offer their services on a volunteer basis.

The prison is known as San Jose dos Campos; in a film about this remarkable place, the chief psychologist there speaks openly about one of the core dimensions of this prison system: "The fundamental importance of the quality of relationships in every stage of the lifestyle is at the heart of the system." He adds that newly arriving prisoners are warmly welcomed by senior recuperandos; there is also an extensive degree of family involvement, and a focus on the importance of a democratic council by which decisions are made. The model on which this program is based was adopted and utilized on wings of 130 other Brazilian prisons.

Both San Jose dos Campos and the Restorative Justice Movement have one thing in common - the re-building of "bridges of interdependence": between community and offender, offender and family, offender and legal system.

The Flavor and Feeling of Partnership

We have briefly explored the shift to a partnership system at the institutional level. Let's go even deeper. What is the essence of partnership itself? The template for this way of being can be found in the term, "partner "- suggesting the joining together of two people.

I mentioned in the prologue that I first encountered the work of Martin Buber in adolescence. It is interesting to me that, all these years later, he remains profoundly relevant. Buber might be called "the father of partnership way." He is known for his formulation of two kinds of relationship which he described as I-It and I-Thou.

To begin, an I-Thou relationship can be described as a "dialogue" - a genuine exchange; in contrast, the I-It (or "Us and Them") mode is regarded as that of "monologue." The individual coming from an I-It way of being may be seeking to command, coerce, manipulate, impress, deceive, exploit or even destroy. There is a one-way, self-serving quality to the relationship where another person is not seen as a partner or "sacred subject," but rather as an object - perhaps more like a piece of furniture. Buber maintained that only an "I-Thou" connection can lead to an authentic, mutual encounter between two people. Some of the characteristics of an "I-Thou" connection:

Mutual openness, lack of manipulation, recognition of uniqueness, mutual confirmation, "turning toward," and accountability without blaming. What the I-Thou relationship is not, is "confluence" - the attempt to blur the boundaries between participants. In other words, it does not imply merging nor does it mean an absence of conflict or differences in outlook.

Through empathy, one "resonates" with the other person, "stepping into their shoes," yet also allowing space for another being's' differences - and ultimately learning to value and encourage the qualities which make that person unique. The appreciation of the differentness of the other's experience is vital. This kind of interaction allows for a relaxation of the sense of separateness; it allows for the possibility of the other's well-being becoming as important as one's own.

Mutual empathy occurs when two people relate to one another in a context of interest in the other with an intent to understand, as well as emotional availability, responsiveness and an appreciation of another being's wholeness. AA offers another facet: the phrase, "identify, don't compare."

Simply put, the I-Thou relationship allows for an authentic joining with another being. And, whatever the roles in a given formal relationship (boss, worker, etc.) we try to find a way of connecting.

In many ways contemporary society has fallen into an I-It mode - whether the issue is dating, deception or genocide.

My sense is that we have become habituated and adapted to relationships that lack the I-Thou aspect of partnership. One can even wonder if a true partnership system can come into existence today.

So - nice words: "I and Thou." But is it possible in real life?

In this light, I want to deepen our focus on the "feeling tone" or felt-sense of this dimension of human relationship.

To make this a bit more real, we can look at a unique kind of relationship - called "psychotherapy."

Psychotherapy: A Particular Kind of Relationship

Psychotherapy is a form of relationship in which the I-Thou dimension is explicit, consciously cultivated - and essentially a sine qua non of effectiveness.

I am choosing to focus on the psychotherapy relationship because it has now been studied in depth. Also, it is a relationship with which I am familiar, since it is the way I make a living.

Psychotherapy is a discipline I have practiced for over 30 years. While there are many schools of and approaches to therapy, key research has shown that there are basic elements within the therapist/client relationship which are likely to create a strong therapeutic alliance and the client/patient's eventual achievement of their goals. Psychotherapy is essentially the conscious creation of a conversation.

More than skills, the following are human qualities that an ideal therapist possesses and utilizes within the therapeutic relationship. These traits can help create a "partnership," facilitating the work to be done.

Empathy: The therapist allows him or herself to resonate with the patient on both cognitive and emotional levels, leaning into what the client is thinking and feeling. In such a moment the person in the role of "client" may feel deeply accepted and understood. There is a momentary meeting - "being-to-being."

Unconditional positive regard/warmth: We can begin by picturing a warm smile or sincerely warm welcome. Or imagining how a warm embrace with a friend feels. Although one can identify behavioral aspects of warmth, it is really a matter of focus and feeling, as in the phrase, "my heart goes out to you." We may not approve of a given action, but nevertheless hold the person in high, unwavering regard.

Genuineness: I often will say to a client that "I am a human being who happens to be trained as a therapist." I work to stay in the present moment and allow myself to be as authentic as possible within the contract we have established - one which is focused on the healing and self-realization of the patient.

Respect - As a clinician I give focused and heart-centered attention to every aspect of a client's being. Respect has been defined as, "a feeling of deep admiration for some attribute, quality or achievement; due regard for the feelings, wishes and rights of another."

Constructive Confrontation - All of us at times harbor illusions - using denial, minimizing, justification or projection; these are just a few of the psychological defenses originally identified by Freud. It is a clinical skill to gently (and sometimes not so gently) address this with the patient when the time is right for deeper honesty.

These qualities are at the heart of human connection. The "facilitative conditions" just listed in fact are the building blocks of any positive relationship. Truthfulness, caring, authenticity and respect - along with discriminating wisdom - all go into making a relationship fulfilling and effective.

True partnership has to do with the way we relate together.

Mutuality, Power and Psychotherapy

As Fairbairn said, "The relationship existing between patient and [psychotherapist] is more important than details of technique."

There are many ways in which therapy is a partnership - and needs to be - and yet, by its nature it is not an equal one nor fully mutual. It is the patient who comes to see a therapist and pays for their services, not vice-versa. In order to facilitate this process of healing, there is a contract which puts the client's subjective experience at the center and there is an agreement to attend to the therapist's subjective experience only insofar as it may be helpful to the client. The therapist offers her/himself to be used in the service of the healing process.

The clinician needs to hold the psychotherapeutic relationship as a sacred trust. As one teacher advised: "let your patients matter to you, to let them enter your mind, influence you, change you - and not conceal this from them." Another teacher put in this way: "Psychotherapy is a matter of the heart."

The Stone Center

My own work has been strongly influenced by the pioneering approach of Stone Center at Wellesley College. I see the writings of Judith Jordan, Jean Baker Miller et. al. as a significant breakthrough in terms of their analysis of dyadic relationships. They chose to consider the relationship itself to be central to the process of healing. And they have used psychotherapy as a window into the deep dynamics of our culture, describing the salient differences between two kinds of power in relationship.

These scholars understood that partnership has another dimension besides collaboration - and this additional dimension has two linked aspects: one is mutuality and the other is empowerment.

In 1976, Jean Baker Miller published Toward a New Psychology of Women and a small group of women psychotherapists began meeting in her living room. Through listening to each other, to their women clients, to other feminist writers, and by critiquing prevailing psychotherapy theory - largely developed by men - their process gave birth to a new model for psychotherapy called Relational-Cultural Therapy (RCT).

RCT recognizes our need for "growth-fostering relationships." Some of the first things they recognized is that there were aspects of women's psychology generally overlooked by most theories, that there needed to be much greater recognition of the essential cooperative nature of human existence, and that throughout time, women have assumed the greater responsibility for providing this element of relationships. Also obvious was the disempowered status of women in patriarchal culture.

Although their model dealt with psychotherapy per say, the Stone Center group soon realized that their insights applied to all relationships. RCT places relationships at the center of our human lives and tends to view psychological ill-health as the result of chronic disconnection in relationships within a culture (and psychological theory) that has over-valued power and independence. Gregory Bateson called this "the myth of self-power."

RCT holds that there are three core relational processes, all of which are expressions of mutuality: mutual empathy, mutual empowerment and mutual responsiveness.

Mutuality is present when the therapist is open to being affected by the client at the same time that the client's growth process is catalyzed by the therapist's interventions. This feedback loop makes all the difference. In this way the opportunity for mutual growth and change arises.

The Stone Center scholars had begun with a bold analysis of power in the therapist-patient relationship, which until that time had essentially remained unexamined. In traditional psychoanalysis, although beginning to be out of vogue, the patient lays supine on a couch with the therapist behind them, essentially out of sight - a vulnerable position indeed. Even today many therapists will have various trappings of expertise on display - diplomas, licenses, etc.

At the same time, they recognized that their analysis actually applied across the board: to the realities of power in all relationships:

"In the 'power-over' or 'power-for-oneself only' model there is an assumption of an active agent exerting control that [arises from] an actual or threatened use of power, strengths or expertise. [Whereas]

-- The alternative model of interaction that we are proposing might be termed 'power-with,' ['mutual power'], or 'power-together'... It suggest[s] that all participants in the relationship interact in ways that are based on connecting and enhancing everyone's personal power."

In an offering a that could very well have come from Riane Eisler, Jean Baker Miller wrote:

"Power has generally meant the ability to advance oneself and simultaneously to limit and if possible, destroy the power of others.

"The power of another person or group of people was generally seen as dangerous. You had to control them or they would control you.

"But in the reality of contemporary human development, that is not a valid formulation. [In fact] the opposite is true. The greater the development of each individual the more able, more effective and less needful of limiting of restricting others he or she will be."

What these women found (which is not really surprising given the pervasiveness of the power-over mindset) is that traditional psychotherapy was structured in a way that often disempowered the very people it sought to help.

The reality is that within the clinical relationship therapists are in a powerful position. A patient/client will "put themselves in the therapist's hands:" opening up, sharing their struggles and hopes for a more satisfying life, and grappling with the obstacles they are seeking to overcome. No matter what the context, being a psychotherapy patient can elicit emotions like sadness or fear - aspects of the self often not shared with others.

However, as Bepko (who was strongly influenced by feminist theory) revealed, the lack of mutuality in traditional psychotherapy with substance dependent clients can replicate the intrapsychic and family dynamics of alcoholics. The absence of mutuality in the therapeutic context itself can create an interactional system in which the client is "one-down" to the therapist in the same way as they have felt one-down to alcohol. In conventional treatment the therapist is seen as more expert, in control, correct in his or her perceptions - in essence more powerful than the patient. The patient may struggle to remedy this, vying with the therapist in the same way as they are trying to be one-up regarding alcohol - proving to themselves and others that they can "handle it."

The Stone Center therapists found that increased mutuality is a solution to this challenging structural issue. Mutuality, as conceived by the Stone Center, meant that therapy is not a one-way street: there are two (in some cases, more than two) active people involved, both of whom are open to change through their interaction. In effective treatment, as the therapy experience deepens both the client and the therapist experience learning and growth.

In terms of power, the psychotherapeutic relationship cannot be fully mutual. However, within this context there can be can be an openness and human caring which goes both ways.

In our culture many, if not most clients, have been wounded through misuse of power, whether in families, educational institutions or organizations.

Therapists are challenged not to replicate toxic power imbalances. We do this by not assuming a "one-up" position vis--vis our clients. We are two human beings in conversation, one of whom is trained to help. Ideally, as therapists, we are taking whatever power we may have and aiding clients in becoming more powerful in the context of their own lives. Keen attunement to power dynamics and an openness to discussing them is essential to effective psychotherapy.

Expansion of the Partnership Model: Mutuality and Empowerment

The Stone Center offered two concepts which add depth and richness to Eisler's partnership model: mutuality and empowerment. These realities are implicit in Eisler's conceptualization. The women of the Stone Center made them explicit. Together they suggest that the alternative to power-over - "power-in-connection" - is more than collaboration, equality or cooperation.

The experience of mutuality in moments of deep connection is more of a felt-sense than an intellectual idea, such that the patient feels connected, understood, deeply accepted and appreciated. The therapist who is able to embody warmth, empathy, and genuineness, as well as respect, generates a field in which mutuality can blossom. At the same time a therapist's compassion allows them to perceive both patient's suffering and their highest potential.

The experience of empowerment: Jean Baker Miller states that the alternative to the power-over model is a "synergistic and nonhierarchical model of growth through the development of mutually empowering relationships." This applies to all relationships.

Miller adds that the vertical or hierarchical power-over model views power as a scarce resource and that competition for power naturally pits people against one another. In this condition, "little self/big other" hopes to flip the situation into "big self/little other." Fritz Perls used to call this dynamic: "top-dog and under-dog." However, relationships rooted in mutual power do not need to be based on these zero-sum assumptions; these premises do not have to apply to interactions between human beings. Through the experience of mutual empowerment in a clinical setting, a client can learn to transfer this orientation to other relationships in their life.

Relational empowerment creates conditions for an enlarged vision, deeper compassion and enhanced energy, which arise from a framework of emotional connection.

And is this not precisely what we need to become cultural change agents?

Conclusion

Riane Eisler's and the Stone Center's clear comprehension of the power-with/power-in-connection mode of being suggests an evolution from the love of power to the power of love. The Dalai Lama has said that now, for us, love is no longer a luxury. In terms of the survival of the human species it has become a necessity. We face an epic choice.

The skills just discussed - mutuality and empowerment - are the bottom line for extricating ourselves from the world-wide power-over predicament in which we find ourselves. It is possible to extrapolate from the two-person therapeutic relationship to larger venues - to learn to transfer the skills and wisdom we have gained into our larger web of relationships. No doubt this will take time - and sustained effort. With perseverance, courage and faith we can learn to apply these understandings to the national and international level, as well as to our daily lives.

If we are to avoid chaos and disintegration, there is no other way forward. This transformation will be a supremely challenging task.

Most are us are still in denial about the intensity of the challenges we will be facing, as we move into the future. Embracing a partnership ethos is no longer a luxury; it is a necessity.

I will end with this, from Andrew Harvey:

"The human race has no hope of survival unless it chooses to undergo a total change of heart, a massive, quite unprecedented spiritual transformation.

"Only the leap into a new consciousness can engender the vision, moral passion, joy and energy necessary to effect change on the scale and with the self-sacrifice necessary to save the planet in the time we have.

"The message we are being sent by history can be summed up in four words: transform or die out."

Andrew Harvey, Conversations with a Modern Mystic

(Article changed on Oct 26, 2024 at 3:01 PM EDT)

(Article changed on Oct 26, 2024 at 3:16 PM EDT)

(Article changed on Oct 26, 2024 at 10:56 PM EDT)

(Article changed on Oct 27, 2024 at 7:56 PM EDT)

(Article changed on Oct 27, 2024 at 10:28 PM EDT)

(Article changed on Oct 27, 2024 at 11:09 PM EDT)

(Article changed on Oct 28, 2024 at 12:17 AM EDT)