It couldn’t hurt. The arrogance of that statement is astonishing.rnI know eouples whose marriages have been helped enormously,rneven “saved” in their view, through pre- or postmarriagerncounseling. And I have met therapists who are likable,rncaring, and, by all appearances, competent. Taken as a group,rnhowever, the “therapeutic community” is not one to err on thernside of caution. Instead, mental health professionals, whoserninfluence is evident throughout society (even in churches), operaternprecisely by Ms. Weiner-Davis’s motto; it couldn’t hurt.rnBut it can hurt, of course. A pseudoscience based on an ever-rnshifting foundation and constantly changing data, appliedrnpsychology has the potential to do real harm to vulnerable people.rnWorse (at least for its “consumers”), the field advancesrnthrough the study of failure rather than the observation of successrn(illness rather than wellness), leaving it oblivious to its ownrnignorance. The main product of the study of dysfunction beingrnstatistics, clinical psychologists thereby put into practice—rnon marriage, childrearing, divorce, depression, adoption, yournname it—theories for which they have data but no proof. Andrnwhen, years later, their theories are shown to be misguided, inadequate,rnunhelpful, or harmful, they do not, as a profession,rnsay “I’m sorry.” They say . .. “Never mind.” Then they advisernyou to get therapy to help you through the problems created byrntheir previous therapy. One unforgettable example of the selfconfidentrninsularity that pervades the field is the case of a NewrnJersey therapist who admitted to having sex with a female patient.rnThe state governing board of his profession suspendedrnhis license for five years and ordered him to undergo . . . therapy.rnNo doubt it is the same prescription the board gave hisrnfemale victim. After all, it couldn’t hurt.rnIt would seem that in the study of all things human, a littlernhumility is in order. Psychologists have been around for generations,rnafter all, but relationships—in this case, as judged byrndivorce rates—are more unhappy than ever. Nevertheless,rnmost of the books and articles available on maintaining orrnmending a marriage are written with an air of dauntless confidence.rnThe problem here becomes not just one of tone but ofrnpracticality. For these authors, resolute all, offer interpretations,rnanalyses, prescriptions, and advice that are often in totalrncontradiction to one another. In a day’s reading, for instance,rnyou can learn from one source that anger is a normal humanrnemotion, and from another that it is “destructive to a relationship,rnno matter what its form” (Harville Hendrix, Ph.D., authorrnof Getting The Love You Want). You can discover that no onernreally understands the triggers of romantic love, and also thatrn”you fell in love because your old brain [the brain stem combinedrnwith the limbic system] had your partner confused withrnyour parents. Your old brain believed that it had finally foundrnthe ideal candidate to make up for the psychological and emotionalrndamage you experienced in childhood.” That’s Dr. Hendrixrnagain. Dr. Hendrix sticks in the mind for two reasons: first,rnbecause he is a wet blanket on every great love poem ever written;rnand second, because of his “ironic” discovery that “thernmore I have become involved in a psychological study of lovernrelationships, the more I find myself siding with the more conservati’rne proponents of marriage. I have come to believe thatrncouples should make every effort to honor their wedding vowsrnto stay together ’till death do us part’—not for moral reasons,rnbut for psychological ones: fidelity and commitment appear tornbe conditions dictated by the unconscious mind.” Leavingrnaside the fact that Dr. Hendrix’s reasoning on this subjectrnmakes clear that he hasn’t the faintest idea—or the slightest interestrnin learning—what the “conservative proponents of marriage”rnare actually saying, his conclusion is a perfect illustrationrnof the detached, self-referential, context-free environment inrnwhich modern psychology operates. We should honor ourrnvows, we are told, not for reasons we understand—like moralrnlaw—but for reasons we do not: the workings of the unconsciousrnmind. That is, it is preferable to see ourselves as sailingrnminus a compass on the murky waters of our unconscious thanrnto choose values, to make judgments.rnOne can spend days readingrntomes by experts’ on thernsubject of marriage and never oncerncome across the words duty,rnwisdom, or sacrifice.rnAfter the listen-to-what-you-don’t-know theories of Dr.rnHendrix, you can read that we should maintain, somewhere inside,rnan idealized image of our spouse, and then, from anotherrnsource, that spousal idealization is unfair and counterproductive.rnYou can learn that communication (i.e., talking, talking,rntalking) is the first key to maintaining a marriage, and thatrncommunication is not necessarily vital to a happy marriagern(from Judith Wallerstein, clinical psychologist and my hero ofrnthe week: “I’m so tired of this, ‘Give me a hug. I need a hug’rn. . . It’s juvenile”).rnYou can even read opposing interpretations of such pop culturernicons as I Love Lucy. One theory has Lucy and Ricky asrnideally paired because their reactions to the worid are perfectlyrnmatched: they shout, smack their foreheads, and slam doors.rnThen there’s the opinion of Jay Gale (Dr. Cut-and-Paste, you’llrnrecall), who posits that “in the real wodd” the Ricardos’ relationshiprn”would have been a disaster waiting to happen,” seeingrnas how they “engaged in very little teamwork, there was littlernhonest sharing, and there was virtually no effective listening.”rnWith that, you are now face to face with the single characteristicrnall authors of marriage manuals have in common, howeverrndivergent their theories, conclusions, or advice: they are uttedyrnlacking a sense of humor. Their idea of a joke is to end a sentencernwith an exclamation point. The plodding Dr. Gale,rnblindly missing the forest for the trees, must be the only livingrnAmerican (excluding his colleagues but including children)rnwho does not understand the point of 1 Love Luc}’. If Lucy andrnRicky had engaged in “teamwork, honest sharing, and effectivernlistening,” they would not have been funny.rnEnough. My head is swimming. In fact, I am consideringrnmaking a list of all the marriage manuals I hate, then burningrnit. Having identified what these authors have in common—humorlessnessrn—^let us now ask if there is anything, anything at all,rnthey agree on. The answer is yes. Generally they agree that thernfirst and greatest cause of conflict in a marriage is “unrealisticrnOCTOBER 1996/13rnrnrn