Relational endings might be one of the experiences that can reveal the most vulnerable parts of ourselves—ruptured stories collapsed into an idea of what could have been. In our capacity as systemic practitioners, we get to listen to several stories of longing: romantic relationships that have dissolved without notice, friendships that no longer hold, family (dis)connections that can stretch across silence and distance. And yet, it is the ache of what once felt coherent that may linger a little longer than anticipated during therapeutic sessions that invite therapists and clients to open space for shared meaning.
Psychological and marriage and family Therapy (MFT) theories have long sought to make sense of this ache, often through the language of attachment styles or relational patterns that organize connection into understandable categories. In our experience, while these frameworks can offer a sense of coherence, they can also narrow therapists’ and clients’ field of understanding by locating this ache within the individual rather than within the relational, cultural, and contextual forces that shape the experiences we are part of.
When following theoretical or cultural scripts, questions about relational endings often surface in sessions and conversations as: Why do I feel this way? What’s wrong with me? It brings forward a consideration: What if we, as a collective, have been settling for questions that limit our field of understanding? What if, in the presence of relational ache, our first response were not to turn inward in search of patterns? What if we could be far more relational with the question: What happened in the spaces between us?
Through our discussions with colleagues, clients, and learners, we noticed something deeply reassuring about the availability of language that can connect our experiences to tangible notions of reality. With a compelling and ‘evidence-based’ map, we come to discussions explaining how people are wired for connection, distress signals of (dis)connection, and even patterned responses that can be organized in familiar categories such as anxious, avoidant, and secure (Johnson, 2004; Johnson, 2019), to name a few.
And truly, what a relief (for some people) it can be to finally locate ourselves or our clients inside a blueprint of experience. To say, with some confidence: this is why I stayed, this is why they left, this is why it hurt the way it did. In these moments, attachment language can offer something close to what we relate to certainty, or at least the appearance of it: A readily available way to organize the emotional (dis)orientation that follows intimacy, rupture, and the aftermath of something that is no longer.
If this writing is already ringing some familiarity, personally or professionally, we invite you to linger here, just long enough to open a window for connection with the complexity that resists to neatly packaged stories. In our view, we strongly believe these windows to alternative ways of knowing are where news of difference can emerge. Independent of relational configuration—romance, friendship, or family (dis)connection—people often find themselves in therapy rooms describing a similar internal negotiation. Clients often arrive asking some version of: Do I continue to pursue this connection(s)? Is the effort mutual? Do I follow what my emotional heart says, or do I reason with my logical brain? And sometimes, more quietly, almost underneath the inaudible, hard-to-name wondering: What is this relationship asking of me?
The practice of identifying what kind of questions we gravitate towards is central in systemic practice—a way of broadening awareness and understanding in moments where people are met with uncertainty in any kind of relationship(s) they hope to develop. Relational researchers, for example, invite us to consider that these moments are not simply intrapsychic dilemmas, but sites of ongoing coordination between self and other where relationships are mutually influenced through interaction, timing, and context (De Jaegher & Di Paolo, 2007). From this perspective, what many people describe as confusion or being stuck may not be connected to a deficit (i.e., attachment style) but rather as a possible disruption in the relational flow. In other words, a breakdown in mutual attunement or coordination (Fuchs & De Jaegher, 2009).
The very language of ‘we need to work on our relationship’ is a simple example of the language of labor itself…
In similar ways, as systemic practitioners, we must consider how relational endings can also be tied to the latest relationship economy, which is an at-large contributor to asymmetries in emotional labor and relational expectations. As therapists, it is extremely important to consider and invite questions that reveal how the social world influences a person’s experience. This notion may be key in reminding all of us that not all negotiations to (dis)continue relationships are evenly distributed. Illouz (2007) and hooks (2000) describe these dynamics as often structured by gendered and cultural scripts that influence who is expected to sustain connection and who is afforded distance. In this sense, the internal dialogue many people experience in the midst of a relational ending is already embedded within larger systems of social meaning that contribute to how responsibility, care, and endurance are lived within and across relationships. The very language of ‘we need to work on our relationship’ is a simple example of the language of labor itself, and with any system of labor, the distribution is rarely equal among people.
What becomes compelling here is the practice of relationality while in our position as MFTs and the intentional invitation to locate ourselves as social beings within and across systems. This positioning asks us to reconsider locating problems solely as part of emotional or family systems and instead attend to the patterns of coordination, disruption, and meaning-making that emerge between people over time. It also requires us to have a reflexive awareness of how we, as therapists, participate in these processes through the questions we ask and the interpretations we often privilege (Fuchs & De Jaegher, 2009).
With this in mind, if we understand the significance of relational life being influenced through ongoing negotiations, then relational work should be concerned about expanding the range of ways people can relate to themselves and others within the constraints and possibilities of their social worlds. A point of relational care here is to help people recognize invisible cultural narratives around labor, care, and responsibility that become internalized as personal dilemmas, in hopes of unsettling the assumption that endurance or withdrawal are purely connected to individual choices (Illouz, 2007).
If we take these invitations seriously, relational endings can be understood not as problems to be solved, but as expressions of human experience that come into play within therapeutic conversations. From this perspective, therapists must cultivate a practice of connection to the in-between spaces—personal and relational—where people expand their own awareness towards who they are becoming. In doing so, therapy can be a place where distress can be located within socio-relational contexts, in hopes that this practice can support clients in developing responses that align with their values and realities. Without rushing toward explanations, systemic practices can sustain the engagement with tensions that emerge in our relational lives. And most importantly, the care required to stay attentive to the space between us, where meaning continues to be in motion.
Danna Abraham, PhD, LMFT, works as an educator at the California School of Professional Psychology at Alliant University. She is an AAMFT Professional member holding the Approved Supervisor and Clinical Fellow designations. Her work focuses on community-based research and feminist approaches to critical engagement, with a particular focus on language and lived experiences. She is the director of the Research Initiative for Storytelling Engagement (RISE) Lab. www.theriselab.com / dr.danna.abraham@icloud.com
Yuritzi Uribe Lemus, MA, is an AAMFT Professional member and MFT doctoral student at the California School of Professional Psychology at Alliant University and an Associate Marriage and Family Therapist. She is devoted to relational integrity and is currently completing her doctoral studies in Couple and Family Therapy at Alliant University in San Diego, CA. She is a researcher collaborator at the Research Initiative for Storytelling Engagement (RISE) lab, currently studying financial challenges in MFT training.
De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. (2007). Participatory sense-making: An enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(4), 485–507.
Fuchs, T., & De Jaegher, H. (2009). Enactive intersubjectivity: Participatory sense-making and mutual incorporation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 465–486.
Hooks, B. (2000). All about love: New visions. William Morrow.
Illouz, E. (2007). Consuming the romantic utopia: Love and the cultural contradictions of capitalism. University of California Press.
Johnson, S. M. (2004). Attachment Theory: A Guide for Healing Couple Relationships. In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 367–387). Guilford Publications.
Johnson, S.M. (2019). Attachment Theory in Practice — Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT) for Individuals, Couples and Families. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Other articles
Feature
Yours, Mine, and Ours: Helping Couples Organize Money
There is a question most therapists rarely think to ask, yet the answer can open the door to some of the most revealing clinical conversations: How do you and your partner actually organize your money?
John L. Hankins, MSS
Feature
When the Bedroom Becomes a Battleground: Treating Sleep Anxiety in Couple Therapy
Shelly tried everything. Melatonin. White noise. Blackout curtains. A sleep tracker that glared at her from the nightstand like a Cheshire cat. By the time she started seeing me, she had not slept more than four hours a night for three years; and her marriage was quietly unraveling.
Bruce D. Forman, PhD
Feature
Closing the Gap Between Knowing and Doing: AI Avatars in MFT Training
A graduate student begins a session with a couple. One partner does most of the talking. The other gives short, brief answers. Inside of two minutes, the talkative partner keeps pressing the student to take their side, and the student has to decide, right then, whether to follow their lead or turn toward the quieter partner.
Jay Burke, PsyD, & Sofia Georgiadou, PhD