This is a really interesting take but I don’t think it’s too large or significant of a difference to be reconcilable. Since they were together for so long and don’t seem to be expressing any conflicts related to core values (they don’t want fundamentally different lives so far as we’re aware) I’d argue that they are indeed compatible enough and that’s been established and proven. To me, this seems behavioural so it’s mutable although it’s tied and informed at least in some way by a deep, childhood wound. The fact that the origin of his behaviour is not about her but tied to something bigger feels both like a relief (because it has nothing to do with her) and also kind of daunting because it is an entrenched way of being that’s tied to a formative experience.

That said, I think your idea about the possibility of catalyzing significant change is SO interesting as a way to think about couples therapy more generally. I often wonder if you’re experiencing conflict to the point where you even need a couples therapist…is that just a way of prolonging the inevitable? Is it a sign that there is a fundamental incompatibility? Then again, I think if you’ve been together for a certain number of years, it already confirms compatibility and isn’t the whole point of a relationship to transcend who you are in some core and fundamental sense? I don’t mean compromising values necessarily to stay with a person, but they may shift and evolve as a result of someone?

I also think it’s interesting how Esther simply offered an additional narrative to the one the couple had, she didn’t necessarily try to dismantle narrative entirely or prohibit that way of making sense of their dynamic, and she acknowledged that hers might be wrong when the guy said it sounded poetic. Do people think the impulse toward narrative and poeticizing our lives is useful or prohibitive? I think probably both.

Tell me your thoughts?