We do not usually talk about our failure in a public forum. This is especially poignant during a presidential campaign where the only failure talked about is the opponent's. Failure is understood to mean when something falls short of what is required or expected; it is unsuccessful, the desired goal is not achieved. There is something negative about failure and yet conventional wisdom of successful people is that they often learn more from their failures than their successes. I wish the political process would allow for that but in America it is all about being right and winning. American culture does not tolerate failure very well.

I am in a business where what we do, therapy, often fails; at least in the short term it appears to be a failure. This week I have seen two marriages fall apart, one that is farther down the road of divorce and one that is dangerously tittering on the precipice of divorce. One might be salvaged; one most likely will not be salvaged. So what have I learned from my mistakes, from failure? What can I take away from this that will make therapy more successful next time?

I think I am asking the wrong question and looking at this failure the wrong way. Yes, I expect to help every marriage that walks in my door. I expect success because I am trained and I have seen much success before with couples. I am trained and learning more about EFT (Emotionally Focused Therapy) which has a great research track record of significantly improving marriages 75-80% of the time. But what makes the difference? Why do some respond and others do not?

I wrote to one of the spouses who do not want to end their marriage that without vulnerability love does not happen; it cannot thrive. It is choked off in self protective armor that stifles and restricts and bounces back every attempt of love's embrace. What in the world would make someone reject love? Why would anyone do that!? Because what is offered is not perceived by the receiver as love; the source of love is seen as anything but loving. They are afraid, for whatever reason(s) to be vulnerable.

I am grieved by these couples' pain. I hate that our efforts ended in a lack of success; that love did not win the day but disappointment and rejection did. I don't know if there is anything more painful than a failed relationship except that it is tempered by the hope of finding love somewhere down the road. We are usually eternal optimists when it comes to love. In fact, many relationships end precisely because someone decides they can find love with someone else. But in divorce someone has decided that love does not happen for them in this relationship. How sad and painful is that.

I want to be honest about my failure to help and to love. It does no good to pretend we have all the answers or pretend that we will not fail. In fact, if conventional wisdom is true, failure is necessary but this conventional wisdom is only true if we do not quit trying. We are meant to love. It is what we are designed to do. We are lovers, and love is most fully realized in a monogamous relationship. It cannot be found in a series of relationships because serial relationships do not require commitment and thus avoid vulnerability. If I am never safe enough to risk being hurt, that is be open to being misunderstood, not valued, or accepted then I can never know love. This is the paradox of love; it can only happen when we are open to its failure. For us to know love, to experience love in our life we must be willing to suffer the pain of rejection, the disappointment of being misunderstood, and still hold out hope that love, in the long run, will not disappoint.

Preparing for a seminar on "How to Connect in the Middle of a Fight", I have been considering a couple of movies that might have good examples of Attachment issues. I am looking for brief segments that capture the essence of the movement of our attachment dance. Sometimes it is much easier to see the dance of relationship than it is to listen to someone describe it. Two movies came to mind, The Story of Us and Kramer vs. Kramer, both movies about a couple struggling with their marriage and the effect it has on their family. In Kramer vs. Kramer there is a wonderful presentation of a father and son bonding after the wife and mother leave. You can see the movement of an unattached and emotionally clueless husband and father learning to connect with his son who has been abandoned by his mother, and come to terms with his role in losing his wife. (If you are offended by a few expletives or nudity do not watch either movie but I hope you do watch them.)

Sue Johnson, in her book Hold Me Tight makes a compelling point that attachment needs are "absolute", meaning fundamental to who we are and how we are designed. That is, our hardware won't operate to its full potential, and is often damaged, without the software system of human bonding. "Attachment is the bottom line, the scaffold on which other elements (of a relationship like sex, caretaking, play, work, etc.) are built. Without secure, safe and bonded relationships, especially during childhood, but also in adulthood, we will not have fully satisfying personal relationships or develop into fully functioning human beings.

Dustin Hoffman, the father in Kramer vs. Kramer makes the journey with his son that Dr. Sue Johnson describes as necessary for creating such relationships: "To achieve a lasting loving bond, we have to be able to tune in to our deepest needs and longings and translate them into clear signals that help our lovers respond to us. We have to be able to accept love and to reciprocate. Above all, we have to recognize and accept the primal code of attachment rather than attempting to dismiss and bypass it. In many love relationships, attachment needs and fears are hidden agendas, directing the action but never being acknowledged. It is time to acknowledge these agendas so that we can actively shape the love we so badly need. "

Like many of us, Dustin Hoffman's character has very little idea of his significant longings and needs but when thrust into caring for his son he chooses to care. He accepts "the primal code of attachment" and does not dismiss or run from it. Refusing to abandon his son, he learns what love is and how to love. There is a remarkable scene where his son falls off a jungle gym and busts his face. His father was attuned to the danger, tried to prevent it and then runs with his son in his arms to the emergency room, refusing to leave him during his treatment. Contrast these scenes with earlier ones of his hapless attempts to care for his son. He becomes a likable, compassionate human being who is there for his son. It is a journey and transformation we all must make to become fully human.

Many of us, particularly men, might question Mr. Kramer's manhood or challenge how important all this really is. His boss certainly does. He is an example of dismissing the basic need of relationship; he is attached to his career. Learning to acknowledge our attachment needs and fears in an open and responsive manner is not emotional sentimentalism. It is rather recognizing that we need the basic scaffold in place in order to build an enduring structure. Without the basic structure of knowing ourselves and facing our fears, being able to communicate and ask for what we need, and being vulnerable enough to receive what we need, we will continue to experience disappointment and failure in our intimate and meaningful relationships. In other words, we will continue to experience disappointment and dissatisfaction with life.

There are many examples that I can give of when I "dismissed and bypassed" my basic need for close, safe, and bonded relationship. I put many other things first, like success, career, sensual enjoyment, demanding my own way, or preferring to be alone. Like Mr. Kramer, my children have taught me to pay attention to building the scaffold of relationship for enduring and rewarding attachments. There is nothing more enduring, more powerful, than an attached relationship. It is something that we all hunger for and what we commonly name love. Do you know your hunger or do you dismiss or deny it?