Intimacy and distance regulation: From Homeostasis to Structural Coupling and Coherence

Abstract

An attempt is made to move from the previously described notion of homeostasis and the symptomatic distance regulator, to a more coherently systemic one, based on the work of Maturana and Dell. Maturana's concept ofstructure-determinism is used to explain how individuals who have consensually shared fears of being either too close or too distant in relationships to others become structurally coupled in such a way that a highly resonant system emerges that regulates itself in a way that is coherent with the structure-determined beliefs of the individual family members. These belief systems are seen as vital ingredients in understanding the process of structural coupling.

Creativity and dialectical phenomena: From dialectical edge to dialectical space

“…Close-proximity or excessive-distance triggers can still activate our universal fears inherent at the edge of this dialectic. Primitive, omnipotent, destructive anxieties in relation to self and others, as well as fears of annihilation, destruction, fragmentation and loss, are all represented (as stated earlier) by the triad that relates to core intimacy anxieties-to hurt, be hurt and the loss of self (Israelstam, 1989a(Israelstam, , 1989b.…”

“…4 Jim's believing system, which arose out of his formative experience with signifi cant others, gave rise to the characteristic 'trio' of anxieties/phobias relating to merger and abandonment, i.e. to hurt, be hurt, and the loss of self (Israelstam, 1989a(Israelstam, , 1989b. Through the understanding of Jim's transference responses, a picture of his believing systems could be built up to read something like this: 'It is dangerous to be close and love too much.…”

The Narcissism of Minor Differences as Distance Regulators in Core Intimacy Problems

“…Intimacy is often associated with such words as intense closeness, togetherness, and oneness. The intimacy I will talk about though, involves a double description, where closeness and separateness are sides of the same dialectical coin (Israelstam, 1989a, 1989b). From an evolutionary point of view, we require sameness/closeness as much as we need separateness/difference (Goodman, ; McCann, ).…”

“…Problems arise when this dialectical flow stops, resulting in stuckness at one pole (Israelstam, , ). I hope to illustrate in the case below how the core intimacy problems in the couple described, activated a particularly distressing too‐near, too‐far dynamic (Byng‐Hall & Campbell, ; Israelstam, 1989a, 1989b).…”

Colliding Intersubjectivites: Transparency in Analytic Couple Therapy

“…I will illustrate below how Jack and Sue, each dominated by maladaptive believing systems, have unfortunately been ‘programmed’ to expect and indeed foreground, evidence that only serves to confirm their destructive believing systems (Israelstam, , ; Weiss, ). These believing systems become the subjective lenses through which our beliefs are selectively constructed, and are self‐fulfilling (Israelstam, , , ).…”