Chronic strategies of disconnection (CSoDs) is a concept developed by the feminist psychotherapist Judith Jordan. It refers to patterns of behaviour that we may develop to protect ourselves from hurt or anxiety in close relationships, but which may now be redundant: i.e., we tend to do them automatically when, in fact, it may be more beneficial for us to stay in closer connection with another person. It is a concept I have written about in relation to relational depth: looking at the ways in which people may, consciously or unconsciously, undermine their own ability to relate at depth.
The Chronic Strategies of Disconnection Inventory was a self-reflective checklist of different CSoDs developed by Rosanne Knox and myself. We developed the inventory based on data from workshops with counsellors and psychotherapists, in which they were asked to identify their own CSoDs (see our paper here). The checklist presents various different CSoDs (e.g., ‘Pushing others away,’ ‘Not expressing your wants’) and invites respondents to indicate on a 0 (Not at all) to 3 (A lot) scale, the extent to which they tend to adopt these CSoDs.
Originally, the inventory was designed for counsellors and psychotherapists to use. The aim was to help us identify our own CSoDs, so that we could explore the extent to which these might ‘leak’ into our therapeutic work, attenuating our ability to relate deeply with clients.
However, the inventory can also be used with clients to help them identify their own CSoDs.
Recently, I received an email from Simon Hughes, a trainee on the first year of a person-centred diploma, who also works in a homeless charity and housing trust. He wrote about his experience of using the inventory in a community of seven people who have come from residential rehab or detox units. I found it so interesting how he had used it that, with his permission, I have reprinted his email (with details anonymised). Simon writes…
As part of the house, we run groups twice a week, and Wednesday's groups are about psycho-social education to build skills for relapse-prevention and help the guys in their recovery. The house are a community who challenge each other and support one another in their recovery—they have strong connections together and this is one of the best things about the project. I have been in this role since September, and decided to use the CSoDs Inventory for a house group on the fourth week I had been in the role. Relationships at this stage were still forming.
First, I spoke to the group for around five to ten minutes to explain what chronic strategies of disconnection were and gave a disclaimer about how they are not diagnostic, but just to raise awareness. I had read the Mearns and Cooper book on relational depth earlier that month, and explained how relationships can help us grow as people, but also how relationships can be risky and that we can develop strategies to protect ourselves from deep ways of relating. I then read out the blurb at the top of the CSoDs Inventory page and we had a discussion about relating deeply to people and how that is helpful (e.g. in the group talking about recovery) but can also be vulnerable and different to how we tend to relate to others outside of the group and places like Narcotics Anonymous.
I was conscious that reading the CSoDs Inventory was not everyone’s style, so I read through the 40 strategies of disconnection aloud, giving examples of how each one might look. After that, we had the choice to either fill in the form with a pen and tick what seemed like a strategy we employed, or else to sit and think if any of them had resonated with us. We discussed what we had said and then had a cigarettes break.
After the break the group said they would like to look at the inventory again, and challenge each other on what strategies they believe the others used. I spoke briefly about how just being aware of them won't change things, but that these things tend to decrease in therapy because of an accepting relationship where people feel able to be themselves truly. I said for example, that my wife and I had been watching too much TV and not relating, and being aware of this helped us relate deeper by doing things like going for walks—but it needed to be followed by more than just being aware of it. We discussed framing how we would challenge each other and its usefulness, then the group decided they would like to proceed. People went round saying what CSoDs they felt others used, and I was surprised that the challenges were empathic and encouraging the others to become more part of the community—no one seemed upset, surprised, or offended.
At the end, the group said they felt that this had been the best ‘house group’ yet. I felt a real sense of depth in the group, which I haven't felt to that extent in a house meeting and the majority of the house seemed really able to use the inventory. I also felt a benefit in taking part in this exercise with them.
Feedback
I feel that the CSoDs Inventory was a hugely useful tool to promote conversation and deepen relationships in the context of a therapeutic group. It provided a space for residents to talk about each other’s behaviour (e.g. isolating in rooms) in a constructive way, in order to promote connection. The inventory worked for people from various educational backgrounds, literacy skills (originally said literally abilities), and at different stages of recovery. The group were able to use the inventory and engage with it, with only a small introduction, and I was able to facilitate the group whilst still being in counselling training. Honest discussion promoted relational depth in the group and the group liked this inventory more than any other Wednesday group I have since co-facilitated.
The CSoDs Inventory might be used by professionals and trainees as a therapeutic tool or outcome measure—it is reasonably accessible in how it is written and works well in a group setting, as well as for individual reflection. The inventory was applied to a group focused on recovery from substances, and provided a format to discuss tensions in the house in easy accessible language without members feeling accused or insulted.
I find the weakness in the inventory is that, while it is graded, there is no interpretation or use for the grading (e.g., no interpretation of what a total score might mean).
It may be that the inventory could be used like other outcome or process forms (e.g. CORE-OM, PHQ-9). For instance, a CSoDs Inventory could be completed at sessions 1 and 10, and the results compared. The assumption would be that people would let go of disconnection strategies within therapeutic relationships, and their score would likely decrease.
Simon’s experiences identify some very interesting possibilities for use of the CSoDs Inventory, and the concept more broadly. As with any therapeutic method, however, the inventory should only be used following consultation with supervisors/trainers, and in-depth discussion of its appropriateness to the particular therapeutic context. It is essential, too, that clients are invited to consider whether or not they would like to use the CSoDs form prior to its use.