Eco-Informed Relational And Sex Therapy Practices - COSRTlearn

Eco-Informed Relational and Sex Therapy Practices Markie L. C. Twist, Ph.D., LMFT, LMHC, AASECT CSE & CSE Supervisor, AAMFT Clinical Fellow & Supervisor (she/her/they/them) @Dr Markie Twist markietwist@gmail.com drmarkie.com facebook.com/drmarkietwist

Presenter Positionality Markie Louise Christianson (L. C.) Twist (she/her/they/them), Ph.D. is an award-winning sexuality educator, sexologist, relationship therapist, author, and international speaker. Markie was born and raised in a small village on the road-system in the state of Alaska. They are Teaching Faculty in the Department of Applied Psychology in the Doctoral and Master of Arts Programs in Couple and Family Therapy and Master of Arts Program in Dance/Movement Therapy at Antioch University New England. Dr. Twist is also a licensed marriage and family therapist and mental health counselor, as well as a clinical fellow and approved supervisor of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, and certified sexuality educator and supervisor through the American Association for Sexuality Educators, Counselors, and Therapists. Dr. Twist is co-author of the books, The Internet Family: Technology in Couple and Family Relationships and Focused Genograms: Intergenerational Assessment of Individuals, Couples, and Families (2nd ed.). Markie also serves as the Editor-in-Chief of Sexual and Relationship Therapy: International Perspectives on Theory, Research and Practice and is co-editor of the book Eco-Informed Practice: Family Therapy in Age of Ecological Peril. In addition, Markie serves as a session instructor at the University of Guelph. To learn more about Dr. Twist visit: drmarkie.com.

Abstract In this presentation, Dr. Markie Twist links ecologically-informed systemic practices with relational and sex therapy practices. This includes a discussion of: the benefits and contraindications to utilizing an eco-informed approach in clinical practice, eco-assessments, eco-informed clinical frameworks, and attention to self-of-the-eco-therapist. In addition, tapping into people’s love of nature, not excluding biophilia and ecosexuality practices, will be discussed as a gateway into including eco-informed practices in sex therapy.

Overview Readings: Hertlein, K. M., & Hechter, S. A. (2019). Chapter 6: Clinical applications of and eco-informed approach to therapy. In T. A. Laszloffy, & M. L. C. Twist (Eds.). Eco-informed practice: Family therapy in an age of ecological peril (pp. 59-72). AFTA SpringerBriefs in Family Therapy. Laszloffy, T. A. & Davis, S. D. (2019). Nurturing nature: Exploring ecological self-of-the-therapist issues. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 45(1), 176-185 [online first 2018]. doi:10.1111/jmft.12312 Laszloffy, T. A., & Twist, M. L. C. (2021, July/August). Attending to the whole system: Eco-informed family therapy. Family Therapy Magazine, 20(4), 6-13. Weadick, P. (2013). Queering the environment: Annie Sprinkle loving the Earth ( in that way). Hard Wire: The Undergraduate Journal of Sexual Diversity Studies, 1, 90-102.

Objectives Participants will: Learn how the relational and sex therapy field and ecological practices are connected. Review scholarly literature supporting the benefits of including ecological practices in clinical practice. Learn of various eco-informed relational and sex therapy clinical frameworks, assessments, and techniques. Discuss self-of-the-eco-therapist considerations and concerns.

Learn how the relational and sex therapy field and ecological practices are connected.

Ecological Roots Gregory Bateson was one of foundational leaders in fields of anthropology, family, and ecological systems Bateson made clear that as individuals we are embedded within family systems and so too are family systems embedded within and connected to all other systems—including ecological and environmental ones (Bateson, 1979) In relation to interconnectedness between all matter and beings, Bateson cautioned us of danger in seeing ourselves as separate from our environment and ecological systems by trying to dominate and chop up natural world (Bateson, 1972; Kuehl, 2009; Laszloffy, 2009) and contributed to the idea of biocentrism (Hernandez-Wolfe, 2019)—the ethical perspective holding that all life deserves equal moral consideration or has equal moral standing

Systems Theory Systems theory as explained through a clip (2:51 to 12:42) from the film Mindwalk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v HrUSzsHJ7-M

Living Systems Bateson emphasized interconnectedness between families and ecological systems in the first Don D. Jackson Memorial Address-when responding to a person claiming to only hold the family sacred Bateson replied, “ if you don’t hold the frogs as sacred as the human family then you’re doomed” (Ray, 2007, p. 868).

Eco-Informed Systemic Practices Sadly, many humans see themselves as separate from the environment While it may not be surprising that much of humanity persists in denying our fate is not linked to health of our ecosystem, it is mysterious that relational therapists, as systemic thinkers, also display such limited recognition of this interrelatedness Indeed, not only does our rich ecological roots position us as systemic therapists in being able to meaningfully address the relationship between individual and family systems with environmental and ecological systems (Kuehl, 2009; Laszloffy, 2009) so does our development as a grass roots field

Eco-Informed Systemic Practices Furthermore, as a field, we have built and maintained a unique clinical approach and professional identity based on systemic thinking against a backdrop of individualistic and relatively unsupportive dominant culture (Becvar & Becvar, 1999; Laszloffy, 2009) It is from this effort and ongoing fortitude that we can draw strength and guidance in our efforts to integrate environmental awareness into our work with families (Laszloffy, 2009)

What are our Relationships to the Earth? Given our systemic connectedness to the Earth and all of the beings on her, what are some of the relationships human beings have with her and her beings? Biophilia: Earth as Mother Earth as Lover (ecosexuality) Earth as Friend Earth as Gaya Biophobia: Earth as Foe Earth as Other Earth as Conquered Earth as Object Earth as Disposable

Ecosexuality Stephens and Sprinkle (2011) define ecosexual as:

Ecosexuality In hopes of taping into biophilia and relatedly encouraging more eco-sustainable practices, Greenpeace (2008) developed their “Forest Love” public service announcement video Ecosexual practices involve practices that are both healthy and harmonious with the macro environment (e.g., Earth), and the micro environments (e.g., one’s body, partner’s body) (Morgan, 2011)

Ecosex Manifesto Stephens and Sprinkle (2021):

LGBTQ E Stephens and Sprinkle (2021) discuss the intersection of ecosexuality with the queer umbrella of identities:

Ecosexuality as Systems Stephens and Sprinkle (2021) discuss the intersection of ecosexuality with systems theory:

Eco-Informed Systemic and Sex Therapy Practices Drawing from these systemic roots, as systemic sex therapists we need to embrace our interconnectedness with greater whole of planetary system and adopt ways of being that stem from this awareness (Blumer et al., 2012; Laszloffy, 2009; Laszloffy & Twist, 2019; 2021)

Review scholarly literature supporting the benefits of including ecological practices in clinical practice.

Individual Benefits Individual benefits include: improvements in self-esteem and mood (Barton & Pretty, 2010) improved symptoms of depression Improved symptoms of anxiety better impulse control improved physical health (e.g., body mass) lowered blood pressure (Buzzell & Chalquist, 2009) diminished biophobia increased biophilia decreased nature-deficiency disorder symptoms (Louvre, 2005) reduced climate anxiety and/or eco-anxiety (Twist, 2022)

Relational System Benefits Familial benefits include: economic gains shared sense of identity shared attitudes greater ease during life stage transitions shared feeling of moral purpose (Davis, Green, & Reed, 2009; Gronhoj & Thogersen, 2017; Sarigollu, 2009) improved family cohesion and shared problem-solving (Hertlein, Fife, Blumer, Smith, & Card, 2009) potential for shared biophilia opportunity for shared ecosexual practices for partners

Learn of various eco-informed relational and sex therapy clinical frameworks, assessments, and techniques.

Address Contraindications & Ethical Concerns Determine fit of eco-informed practices for client systems and their presenting problems (Blumer et al., 2012) Consider the role of environmental privilege (Norgaard, 2012) and green gentrification (Gould & Lewis, 2012) Is this a values based practice, especially if introduced by therapist? Historically, therapists have been advised to avoid discussion of values in practice Therapists are partially hired based on value systems and values can be fertile common ground—similarity of client and therapist values results in more favorable outcomes Also consider values conversations around any topic are occurring regardless of being spoken of in session, including conversations around eco-sustainability (Fife & Whiting, 2007) “Respect for clients’ values does not necessitate an avoidance of values or values discussion in therapy. Rather, a respectful therapeutic approach may, in some cases, require a discussion of values” (Fife & Whiting, 2007, p. 78)

Ecology-Based Assessments (Twist et al., 2019)

Ecology-Based Assessments (Hertlein & Hechter, 2019) Assessment name Relationship with nature assessments: Love and Care for Nature Scale Sensual Awareness Inventory Assessment description Assessment source 15-item rating scale designed to measure a Perkins person’s love and caring for nature (2010) Designed to assess how much attunement Burns (2000) people have with their environment, specifically with nature, and in what ways nature is a source of pleasure or enjoyment for them. Participants make six columns labeled: sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, and activity, following by listing ten to twenty items or activities that give them pleasure, enjoyment, and comfort. After clinical participants complete their lists, the therapist processes the information with client. Interestingly, participants tend to list many nature-based activities and sensations.

Eco-Genogram Assessment (Blumer et al., 2012; Laszloffy & Twist, 2021; Twist et al., 2019) Do you and your family participate in outdoor activities (i.e., hiking, camping, picking up trash together, botany, etc.)? Do [ecological sustainability] practices impact unity or cohesion within your family? Describe how. What is your definition of ecological sustainability? Has it influenced you now or in the past? Why or why not? How has your family-of-origin impacted your decision to be or not to be sustainable? How, if at all, do you see your family’s sustainability as connected to ecological sustainability?” How do changes in our environment (e.g., weather, natural disasters, animal extinction, etc.) influence the growth of humans in general, and your growth specifically? Do you ever feel connection with the earth/nature? Is it like an attachment relationship – as in feeling a sense of kinship or familial connection to nature/earth? Does experiencing solitude in nature/environment bring about more or less awareness in you? What is it like to share nature with yourself? With others? Are you more or less lonely outdoors or indoors? Elaborate. Is there a connection between care for the earth and care for others? Is there a connection between caring for the earth and disconnecting from technology? Is love of technology hindering our love of nature? Can you be attached to the earth and technology (at different times, at the same time) or are these attachment relationships mutually exclusive?

Environmental Toxicity Assessment Questions (Laszloffy, 2019; Laszloffy & Twist, 2021)