Red Sistémica · Couple therapy
Couple therapy: “urgency for sameness” or “appreciation of difference”
Many couples arrive in therapy convinced that their own way of perceiving the facts is the right one and that the solution lies in converting the other to the same truth. Michael White calls this uncontrollable enthusiasm an “urgency for sameness”, whose outcome is ordinarily separation, the subjugation of the other, or symmetrical escalation. Against it he sets the binocular vision he borrows from Bateson – double description, the deep appreciation of difference – and sets out in detail the exercise of the “three O’s” that he devised in order to establish it, with its conditions of setting and the part the therapist plays in it.
“Binocular vision is in itself the greatest source of change in relationships.”
Michael White
Editor’s note
This text reaches us from English by way of Spanish: the version published by Red Sistémica is Sabrina Helou’s Spanish translation. The expression White coins for the pressing need that the other should see the world exactly as one sees it oneself – urgencia de mismidad in the Spanish text – is restored here as “urgency for sameness”, the wording closest to White’s English; more literal renderings, such as “urgency of selfsameness”, are also found. The name of the exercise, “the three O’s”, is explained neither in the original nor in its Spanish version; it is kept as it stands.
What brings couples to therapy
Couples turn to therapy for a whole range of reasons. Frequently the problems represent difficulties that the members of the couple have in accepting, and at the same time in appreciating, the fact that the other’s perceptions and experiences of the events of reality are different from their own. This difficulty appears when they firmly believe that their way of approaching reality and the facts is the right one, and that they are, in a certain way, endowed with a greater capacity for objectivity – a capacity that escapes, for some inexplicable reason, the other member of the couple. This iron-clad belief induces in them an uncontrollable enthusiasm and the need for others to share their world as they themselves perceive it, as an “urgency for sameness”. They uphold the theory that the solution of the common difficulties of the relationship requires the other to subscribe to the same truth. This theory leads to certain strategies, which they hold to be absolutely justifiable, aimed at persuading the other that he or she needs to recover their good sense.
The “urgency for sameness”
When one of the members of the couple experiences an intense “urgency for sameness”, the result is ordinarily separation, or the successful subjugation of the other. If the subjugation of member B takes place, member A takes over the perceptions and the experiences of reality of the subjugated member. This devaluing of member B will make him or her vulnerable, depressed and prone to medication.
At this point, member B may even become the repository or the target of physical violence, since member A considers himself entitled to resort to corporal punishment in order to keep member B on the straight and narrow. (In these circumstances, member A is generally a man.) Member A is convinced that he is entitled to feel angry.
But if both members of the couple experience this “urgency for sameness” simultaneously, the result is different. A symmetrical or competitive relationship is established, in which both parties involved put their energy and their creativity at the service of establishing indisputable proof that the other is wrong.
As new breaches of disputed meanings and experiences open up, both members of the dyad become “intoxicated” with anger, with the concomitant feeling that each is entitled to it. This confrontation takes the form of an ascending spiral.
Only one member in “urgency for sameness”
Separation, or subjugation of the other: A takes over B’s perceptions, and B becomes vulnerable, depressed, exposed to medication and sometimes to physical violence.
Both members simultaneously
A symmetrical or competitive relationship: all the energy and the creativity go into proving that the other is wrong, and the confrontation spirals upwards.
The “binocular vision”
However, whichever case is considered, when the members of a relationship are unable or unwilling to suspend their belief that they have access to the one and only truth, there is no possible basis for establishing “sensitivity” or “contact” in the relationship. Being in contact does not imply agreeing, but it does require a certain degree of permeability on the part of the members of the relationship to the perceptions and the experiences of the other. Under these conditions, those concerned can compare and set side by side two descriptions – the fruit of two distinct ways of perceiving the facts.
This double description makes it possible to draw new distinctions which, in their turn, will call forth new responses. When the members of the couple manage to consolidate the mechanism of this double description, a deep perception of the relationship comes within their reach, one that allows them to go further in sensitivity.
In working with couples, I usually call this deep perception binocular vision (following Bateson), maintaining that it is in itself the greatest source of change in relationships. I also insist on the fact that renegotiation emanates, fairly spontaneously, from binocular vision, from a deep appreciation of difference.
There are many paths towards this binocular vision. Over the years I have developed the practice of an exercise that is effective, above all in cases where the couple relationship has gone through a long period of insensitivity. This exercise asks both parties to obtain a second description of the events or of the problems of their relationship, and I have called it “the three O’s”. It should not be confused with the three O’s of pain control.
Key takeaway
Being in contact is not being in agreement: it is accepting a certain permeability to the perceptions of the other. Two descriptions held together draw new distinctions, and those distinctions call for new responses. It is this binocular vision, and not negotiation, that is the primary source of change: renegotiation then follows from it of its own accord.
Preliminary considerations on the three O’s
Although the exercise is relatively simple, the setting within which it takes place is of fundamental importance for its success. A preliminary time of orientation or preparation must therefore be taken with the couple. I usually begin this preparation by telling them that I have an exercise that will surely be of benefit to them, provided that they are ready to experience it. I then suggest to them that, since I have no means of verifying whether they are in fact ready, the best way of determining this is to describe the exercise to them and let them decide for themselves. Finally, the couple are given the following preparatory notions.
1. They are told that the exercise does not require agreement (other than agreeing to do the exercise) and that self-defence is entirely useless in it. I then inform them that if either of the members is incapable of escaping “intoxication”, drunk on an urgency for sameness or on an uncontrollable enthusiasm at the idea of the other sharing his or her world as he or she perceives it, they will lose the opportunity of carrying out an exercise that could be beneficial for the relationship.
2. It is stated that the exercise does not call for a rational approach to the problem, which dispenses them from their habits of reasoning. However, given the difficulty of getting round these habits, they are told that they may not be ready for an exercise that would mean a beneficial change in the relationship.
3. They are assured that the exercise has nothing to do with negotiating matters relating to the relationship, and that the maturity required in the relationship will not be obtained by means of negotiations conducted before the right conditions have been established; and that this negotiation emanates fairly spontaneously from binocular vision. Since premature negotiation is paralysing, it becomes necessary to suspend any attempt at negotiation. But if the question of prior negotiations continues to exert its attraction on the members of the couple, it will be clear that they are not ready for the experience that may prove so beneficial to the relationship.
4. They are told that the exercise bears on binocular vision, on the deep appreciation of difference, on the comparison of points of view, on the establishing of contact. The couple are warned that if they do not consider themselves capable of this confrontation, it will not be possible to carry out the exercise that would give good results for the relationship.
5. With symmetrical couples, the exercise is approached as a sequential exchange of truths, rather than as a simultaneous exchange of truths. They are told that if they do not feel able to establish the reign of “simultaneity”, then they are not ready to undertake an exercise that could prove so beneficial. When one of the members of the couple has a greater urgency for sameness, the exercise is approached as a method for opening space for the expression of the experience of the other.
The exercise is then set out in detail; it is made up of two roles and three stages. One of the parties is assigned role A and the other role B. B’s role is to open space for A to express his or her perception and experience of the events or the problems of the relationship.
Either party may make it known that they wish to begin the exercise. The couple must agree on a signal that constitutes an acceptable indication of this wish. A period of time is fixed during which the couple cannot be interrupted.
The exercise is more effective if the intimacy of the relationship is played out before an audience. I tell couples that, since the private character of relationships sustains “intoxication” with an urgency for sameness, it would be of interest to them to involve in the exercise a third participant who does not side with either party (a friend, a relative, an acquaintance). This third participant is informed of the rules of the exercise and is encouraged to express his or her own perceptions of the event, once it is over.
When the details of the exercise are given, I inform the couple that member B has the task of reassuring the other: of letting him or her know that he or she can cooperate in being confronted with A’s perception and experience of the facts, including A’s thoughts and feelings. If it is obvious to member A that the other is becoming defensive and reactive, A may comment on it; if A does not manage to obtain reassurance from B in a satisfactory way, A must put an end to the exercise. If B considers that he or she is becoming defensive or reactive, and feels unable to give A the necessary reassurance, he or she should call off the exercise.
When and how does the therapist intervene?
The therapist’s intervention is frequently required for an effective activation of the roles. This may consist in suggesting to A a new way of describing his or her feelings and thoughts, as well as in proposing to B questions liable to deepen B’s understanding and A’s expression. For example:
“I am not sure that I yet have a complete picture of the sequence; could you go over it for me in more detail?”
“To help me understand your experience, could you tell me about any other experience that contributed to your despair, until you reached this point?”
“You do not have to protect me from the depth of your feelings, because I am cooperating in this. Are you hiding a feeling for fear of my reaction?”
Once the exercise has been presented, if the couple believe themselves ready, they are reminded once more not to attempt to negotiate. If it is a competitive relationship, they are told that they may exchange roles, provided that they have successfully worked through the three stages.
If one of the members has a greater urgency for sameness than the other, he or she is assigned role B only, until the therapist reconsiders the situation at the following session.
Experience has shown me that, even without having access to role A or practising it, this member reaches a better understanding of his or her own thoughts and feelings. This is manifest proof of the power of double description (I dare say it).
I have occasionally used this exercise with men who are violent towards their partner. In these circumstances, the exercise is introduced only at the stage of experiences (White, 1986a) and is worked on exclusively under my direction and in my consulting room.
A meeting with the therapist is arranged in order to review with the couple what they lived through of the exercise. At this reunion, the therapist responds to the couple’s response to the exercise (White, 1986b).
The exercise of the three O’s
Role A
1. Describe your perception of an event or a circumstance of the relationship that disturbs or wearies you.
2. Set out your feelings and your personal thoughts about yourself in relation to these facts.
3. Express hopes of change that would make the repetition of these facts unlikely.
Role B
1. Express your opinion on A’s perception and resist your self-defence.
2. Deepen your understanding of the expression of feelings and thoughts by means of questions, and provide the necessary reassurance.
3. Specify the details of the hope of change and the way in which A would like these hopes to come about.
Notes from the original
Spanish translation by Sabrina Helou, psychologist.
We thank INTERFAS for the kindness with which it made this material available to us.
Dr Michael White led a theoretical and practical workshop (“New descriptions: the externalising of problems and their contexts”) in Buenos Aires, on 15 and 16 April of this year, under the scientific patronage of Dr Dora Schnitman, director of INTERFAS.
References
Bateson, G. (1980) – Espíritu y Naturaleza. Amorrortu Editores.
White, M. (1986) – The Conjoint Therapy of Men Who Are Violent and the Women with Whom They Live. Dulwich Centre Newsletter, Spring.
White, M. (1986) – Negative Explanation, Restraint, and Double Description: A Template for Family Therapy. Family Process, 25: 2.
This article is an English translation of “Terapia de pareja: Urgencia de mismidad o apreciación de la diferencia”, published by Red Sistémica (first published in Red Sistémica). Translated and republished with the journal’s permission.
Read the original articleHow to cite this article
White, M. (2022). Couple therapy: “urgency for sameness” or “appreciation of difference” (Complexe Systémique, Trans.). Complexe Systémique. https://app.complexe-systemique.com/en_GB/articles/couple-therapy-urgency-for-sameness-or-appreciation-of-difference (Original work published in 2022 in Red Sistémica; republished in 2022 by Red Sistémica, https://redsistemica.ar/2022/06/20/terapia-de-pareja-urgencia-de-mismidad-o-apreciacion-de-la-diferencia/)
To go further
- Narrative therapiesThe current of which Michael White is the founding figure, its assumptions and its practices.
- Externalizing the problem in therapyThe practice White was presenting in Buenos Aires at the time this text circulated.
- Handling couple conflicts in the therapy sessionConducting the session when each partner first wants to prove the other wrong.
Related training courses
Webinar
Extramarital affairs: what does the therapist do when the couple explodes?
Free webinar: how to position yourself as a systemic therapist in the crisis of the extramarital affair. Revelation, secrecy, multipartiality.
Webinar
The three loves
Free live webinar with Dr Robert Neuburger, 1 October 2026, 6 pm (Paris): the three loves, attachment and ways of loving. Held in French.
Certifying course
Training in Systemic Therapy and Interventions – Cycle 1
Certifying training cycle in systemic therapy and interventions – year 1. Courses, supervision and practice, aligned with EFTA/SFTF. In French.
Certifying course
Training in Systemic Therapy and Interventions – Cycle 2
Certifying training cycle in systemic therapy and interventions – year 2. Clinical complexity, supervision and practice. EFTA/SFTF aligned. In French.
Related articles
Article The AFFIRM Model for Navigating Challenges in Continuously-Interfaith and Divergent-Interfaith Marriages
Thirty happy interfaith couples describe how they navigate their religious differences: five processes, from respecting each other’s choices to religious intimacy, gathered in the AFFIRM model.
Article Toxic, narcissistic, borderline: what therapy speak does to your relationships
Narcissistic, borderline, toxic: therapy speak has left the consulting room. Julien Besse shows how these labels close the debate and relieve us of our own part.
Article Silence in therapy: a polysemic presence
From Heidegger to Palo Alto, silence is not an absence but a message. Defensive, strategic, reflective or shared: its forms, its functions and its risks.
Article When intuition comes before strategy. The first flash of meaning
From Bergson to von Foerster, intuition is not the enemy of rigour but its immediate side. How it works concretely in the clinical interview, and why it calls for a reflexive stance.
Comments 0
Log in to join the discussion. Log in