Understanding the Complexity of Intimacy
Barbara J. Lynch, Ph.D and J. Edward Lynch, Ph.D

Intimacy is both an elusive and sought after factor in relationships.  The foundation and the structure of the relationship reside in the capacity for intimacy, the struggle to attain it, and the intrinsic anxiety associated with having it and losing it.  In thirty years of working with couples, it has become apparent that individuals choose partners with an unspoken agreement that the capacity for intimacy in the dyad and the manner in which intimacy is expressed is learned at an early age, out of awareness, and that the threshold for intimacy is established from families of origin. 

Individuals ‘learn’ a tolerance for intimacy and the anxiety associated with intimacy from interactions that take place in family of origin settings.  These patterns are established in early childhood and remain operational in a subtle and powerful manner throughout the individual’s life. Therapists working with clients on their issues with intimacy can spend many hours in efforts designed to uncover these patterns and to make inferences from the therapeutic relationship about the template of intimacy governing the client’s relationships.

Starting with the premise that the client’s self-discovery will neutralize resistance and be more enduring as a self-creation than an interpretation by the therapist, a reliable tool for encouraging self-discovery is desirable and helpful.  The authors have developed and used a ‘projective’ technique with individuals and couples for more than twenty-five years with results that are resoundingly successful.  Individuals are asked to represent their family of origin as they experienced it when they were either ten, eleven, or twelve years old.  A series of four geometric figures are used as symbols for individual family members. 

In and of themselves these basic four shapes have no significance or interpretative value.  Consistent with a systemic perspective, shapes are relevant only as they related to another shape and are considered with their differences and similarities. Therefore the factors of proximity and distance, identification, and restricted (or unrestricted) access to other figures, and relative size as an indication of perceived power are given consideration.