See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258193200

The Soul Mates Model A Seven-Stage Model for Couple’s Long-Term

Relationship Development and Flourishing

Article in The Family Journal · July 2012

DOI: 10.1177/1066480712449797

CITATIONS READS

4 1,226

3 authors, including:

Luis De La Lama
University of the Cumberlands
1 PUBLICATION 4 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Luis De La Lama on 05 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Family Journal: Counseling and
Therapy for Couples and Families
The Soul Mates Model: A Seven-Stage 20(3) 283-291
ª The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
Model for Couple’s Long-Term Relationship sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1066480712449797
Development and Flourishing http://tfj.sagepub.com

Luisa Batthyany De La Lama1, Luis De La Lama1, and

Ariana Wittgenstein2

Abstract
This article presents the integrative soul mates relationship development model, which provides the helping professionals with a
conceptual map for couples’ relationship development from dating, to intimacy, to soul mating, and long-term flourishing. This
model is informed by a holistic, a developmental, and a positive psychology conceptualization of the individual and the relationship.
It integrates select concepts from narrative therapy, Gottman method, and Jungian analytic psychology. Two pictograms derived
from 17th century alchemy are provided to facilitate the visual and metaphorical conceptualization of the model. The soul mates
model applies to all individuals and couples interested in optimizing their relationship, regardless of marital status, religious affilia-
tion, or sexual orientation. The model may be applied to counseling, therapy, and coaching interventions, as well as relationship
education, research and measurement, courses in higher education, and couples’ workshops and retreats.

Keywords
soul mates model, relationship development model, positive psychology, alchemy

Most contemporary helping professionals and relationship edu- control, ‘‘mates’’ to underscore the equal and committed nature
cators continuously adapt their practices to serve the changing of the partnership, and ‘‘model’’ to reinforce the conceptualiza-
needs of contemporary couples, yet the conceptual frameworks tion of this approach as a broad blueprint, or plan of action, for
and therapeutic modalities that inform their interventions are long-term relationship success. We present the model by addres-
still largely based on the 20th century’s marriage-centric, sing the following topics: historic background, rationale, con-
problem-centric, remedial models. In the last few decades, ceptual and therapeutic frameworks, pictograms for the model,
however, couples circumstances have drastically changed, and the model’s seven stages and their tasks, the model’s main char-
many of the 20th century’s couple’s relationship scripts and acteristics, its limitations, and its applications.
therapy models may no longer suffice to adequately address the
needs of contemporary couples living in the 21st century’s indi-
vidualistic, postmodern, consumerist, multicultural, and global Historic Background Informing the Soul
society. While the 20th century’s models are useful to help cou- Mates Model
ples change their behaviors in the short term, they often fail to In the past, couple’s unions were mainly defined by marriage.
provide practitioners with the comprehensive, big picture, hol- Family, society, religious dogma, and law conspired to estab-
istic, integrative model and relationship map they need to guide lish the sanctity of marriage and prevent divorce. The marriage
couples on their journey to positive, long-term relationship agenda centered on securing the couple’s survival, acquiring
development, and flourishing. property, and raising a family. Same-sex unions were mostly
In this article we propose, that in order to help contemporary taboo, and spirituality was largely addressed within religious
couples navigate the challenges of the 21st century’s relation- dogma (Long & Young, 2007; Serlin, 2005). Today, however,
ship environment and succeed in the long term, helping profes-
sionals and the couples they serve, now need a new holistic,
developmental, and positive model for long-term success and 1
University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, USA
2
flourishing, a model that we call the soul mates model of rela- Florida School of Professional Psychology, Argosy University, Tampa, USA
tionship development. We selected the three words comprising
Corresponding Author:
this title to imply the following: ‘‘soul’’ to denote the holistic Luisa Batthyany De La Lama, University of South Florida, 135 24th Ave.
approach that focuses on developing the partner’s and the rela- N., St. Petersburg, FL 33704, USA
tionship’s interconnection, positive core, and internal locus of Email: [email protected]
284 The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 20(3)

“The Philosopher says: Make a

circle out of a man and woman,
derive from it a square, and from
the square a triangle, make a
circle and you will have the
Philosopher’s Stone.”

Michael Maier, in Atalanta

Fugiens, Oppenheim, 1617.

Figure 1. Pictogram for the soul mates model.

Renaissance alchemist Johann Daniel Mylius provides

the “alchemical Squaring of the Circle within the
microcosm of the Work”, which provides a useful
pictogram for the couple’s completion of the magnum
opus, the creation of the philosopher’s stone, a
metaphor for the inner world they create together, their
successful positive, long-term relationship
development, and flourishing.

Johann Daniel Mylius, in Philosophia Reformata,

Frankfurt, 1622.

Figure 2. Pictogram for the relationship’s Magnum Opus, its positive completion and flourishing.

couple’s circumstances have drastically changed. The life La Lama & De La Lama, 2008, 2011; Schnarch, 2009), have
expectancy, for example, has almost doubled; rising from an no viable model to guide them as they work to infuse meaning
average of 40 years in the early 1900s to near 80 today. This and intimacy into their union.
remarkable increase in life expectancy offers couples several Throughout the 20th century, advances in medicine, tech-
more decades of intimacy building and relationship develop- nology, and civil rights have increased the status and freedoms
ment after their most pressing needs of securing a living and of women and minorities, effectively unsettling traditional
raising a family have been satisfied, and their children have left gender and cultural roles. For example, the availability of safe
the home (Cherlin, 2009; Coontz, 2005; Penn & Zalesne, and reliable birth control, as well as the steep decrease in
2007). While society’s scripts for relationship success, influ- infant mortality has freed women’s time and efforts from
enced by consumerist attitudes (Illouz, 1997), and celebrity focusing on raising a large number of children, to getting an
worship remain largely focused on the young and the beautiful education and joining the workforce (Coontz, 2005; Tyack
(Kenneth Gergen, Ph.D., personal conversation, February & Hansot, 1992).
2010), mature couples, who may realize that they can no longer Moreover, the wide-ranging historic changes of the 20th
rely on their sexuality to generate the relationship coherence it century, which have ultimately led to the current attitude of
may have provided during their younger years (Batthyany-De expressive individualism, have also intimately affected
De La Lama et al. 285

couple’s relationship dynamics and drastically changed the Lama, 2008, 2011; Cherlin, 2009; Coontz, 2005; Long &
contemporary couple’s own psychological and philosophical Young, 2007; Serlin, 2005). Therefore, it becomes clear that
outlook on what it means to be a happy and successful couple individuals, couples, and the helping professionals who serve
at every stage of their relationship. These changes have been so them now need a new integrative, positive, developmental,
drastic that today the external locus of control historically pro- present, and future-oriented relationship model to guide cou-
vided by the convergence of society, traditional family values, ples long-term flourishing.
religion, community, and law can no longer be counted on to
help couples stay together as was the case in the past. In fact,
the power of religious dogma and societal norms has continu- Conceptual and Therapeutic Frameworks
ously decreased (Thornton, Axinn, & Xie, 2007) while athe- Informing the Model
ism, agnosticism, and individual spirituality have become Successful couple’s relationship development has become very
more popular and politically correct (Cherlin, 2009; Koepsell complex, as it touches upon all areas of a couple’s life, from the
& Mercurio-Riley, 2008). Following the sexual revolution in successful fulfillment of their most material and financial needs
the early 1970s, divorce has become increasingly common- to the development of deep intimacy, all the way to their most
place, with families now consisting of a variety of arrange- abstract ideologies, values, beliefs, and spiritual orientations.
ments based on reciprocal commitments in addition to their Therefore, a contemporary model for successful couple’s rela-
legal and/or kin bonds (Cherlin, 2009; Penn & Zalesne, tionship development should be holistic and integrate a variety
2007). Meanwhile, for those couples that still wish to get and of conceptual and therapeutic frameworks, the most relevant of
stay married, even the institution of marriage has undergone which we are briefly describing below.
constant changes in the last 100 years, transforming itself
from the largely traditional marriage to the companionate mar-
riage (Coontz, 2005) and ultimately to the individualistic mar-
Conceptual Frameworks
riage so prevalent today (Cherlin, 2009). As a result, marriage Developmental. This orientation posits that individuals and
has now come to mean different things to different couples, their relationships are continuously engaged in a natural, devel-
even as some committed couples choose not to marry at all opmental, growth process through time that extends beyond the
(Thornton, et al., 2007). Some, worried about the rising divorce body’s functional maturity and proceeds in a series of stages
rate, argue that marriage is in demise, even while many com- throughout the life cycle (Crain, 2005; Newman & Newman,
mitted same-sex couples, who want to be married, are still 2007; Papalia, Wendkos Olds, & Duskin Feldman, 2004;
barred from legal marriage in their state or country (see Van Santrock, 1999). Adult development is defined as ‘‘a process
Acker, 2008 for an overview of this debate). As a result of these of qualitative changes in attitudes, values, and understandings
changes, relationship stability and success are now more diffi- that adults experience as a result of ongoing transactions with
cult to come by than ever before. Couple’s are largely left to their social environment’’ (Taylor, Marienau, & Fiddler,
adapt to new circumstances on their own, trying as best they 2000, p. 10), and as following a cycle of differentiation and
can to avoid making the relationship mistakes that they believe integration (Kerr & Bowen, 1988; Schnarch, 2009) that varies
their parents made, even while they attempt to develop new for each individual and results in an increasing capacity to
scripts and story lines to help them succeed in contemporary reframe and make meaning out of experience (Taylor et al.,
society without a viable model for long-term success (Coontz, 2000). Adult development theory posits that developmental
2005; Serlin, 2005; Van Acker, 2008). stages continue in the inner, intrapsychic world of emotions,
mind, meaning, and spirituality/consciousness once the indi-
vidual’s body is fully grown at the stage of young adulthood.
Rationale for the Soul Mates Model Couple’s relationships are developmental, in that they grow
Despite the advent of expressive individualisms, the high and develop along a relationship life cycle that may run parallel
divorce rate, and the consumerist attitudes toward relationships to but does not always coincide with the individual partner’s
common in Western society, research still shows that long last- life cycle. The soul mates model provides a developmental pos-
ing, stable relationships tend to be healthier, more rewarding, itive psychology perspective (Nakamura, 2011) in which prob-
and fulfilling for the individuals involved, their children, and lems are seen as opportunities to seek out new resources and
their extended families regardless of marital status, sexual develop new strengths and skills that serve as springboards to
orientation, or religious affiliation (Cherlin, 2009; Van Acker, a new developmental level. The model’s seven stages delineate
2008). Yet while helping professionals are versed in techniques this relationship life cycle, and the stage’s tasks point to the
to help couples change their behaviors in the short term, and strengths and skills partners need to develop in order to suc-
help them to stay married and prevent divorce, many of cessfully navigate each stage.
the marital and couples therapy models these therapist work
with lack a clear plan on how to promote a couple’s long- Holistic. The holistic outlook states that the whole (the whole
term, holistic, positive relationship development and flourish- individual, the whole relationship) is greater than the sum of its
ing once the couple’s most pressing problems are resolved and parts, that the parts of the whole are in a dynamic, fluid rela-
divorce has been avoided (Batthyany-De La Lama & De La tionship to one another, and that, for optimal functioning of the
286 The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 20(3)

whole, the parts must be individually addressed and intention- Constructivist/developmental. This philosophical orientation,
ally integrated (Batthyany-De La Lama & De La Lama, 2008; which is based on constructivist (Neimeyer, 2009) and
Shannon, 2002). A holistic conceptualization of the couple’s constructivist-developmental theory (Guiffrida, 2005;
relationship development posits that each partner be viewed Isopahkala-Bouret, 2008; Kegan, 2000; Kegan & Lahey, 2009;
through the lens of the inherent body–emotions–reason– McAuliffe, 2011; McAuliffe & Ericksen, 2002; Merriam,
mind–spirit interconnectedness which most people believe Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2006; Mezirow, 2000; Taylor,
in and value (American Holistic Medical Association, 2008; 2008; Tsoi-Hoshmand, 2004), posits that adult individuals per-
Pargament, 2007; Pargament, Desai, & McConnell, 2006). ceive the world through the lens of the assumptions and mental
Atheists and agnostic partners may substitute the concept constructs (Neimeyer, 2009) they have developed about their
of spirituality with that of soul, core self, higher meaning, world. This applies to individuals and couples in committed
ultimate purpose, self-transcendence, and self-transcendent relationships in that through self-reflective and critically
cause (Covey, 1991; Koepsell & Mercurio-Riley, 2008; self-reflective practices, they may uncover and evaluate these
Northhouse, 2009; Quinn, 2004) or some other relevant assumptions (Brookfield, 2000, 2005; Cranton, 1994, 2006;
construct (Batthyany-De La Lama & De La Lama, 2007, Taylor, 2008). After careful evaluation, they may choose to
2008, 2009, 2011). discard assumptions that no longer serve them and embrace
new ones that more readily advance their goals (Cranton,
2006; Kegan, 2000; Kegan & Lahey, 2009), long-term vision,
Positive/positive core. This conceptual framework, inspired by
and narrative of choice.
the tenets of appreciative inquiry ([AI] Cooperrider, Whitney,
& Stavros, 2008; Whitney & Trosten-Bloom, 2010), positive
Social-constructionist. This conceptual framework posits that
psychology (Nakamura, 2011; Seligman, 2011; Snyder &
there is no universal, actual, objective truth ‘‘out there’’ to
Lopez, 2005), and narrative therapy (Payne, 2006; White,
be uncovered and known, but that instead all truths are
2007) states that, to a certain extent, individuals and couples
socially constructed, cocreated by individuals in relationship,
can make deliberate choices about how to shape their lives;
communication, and interaction with each other (Gergen,
they have choices of quality, attitude, and meaning. If this is
2009; McAuliffe, 2011). This conceptual framework is rele-
true, they can select a positive core to expand and then crea-
vant to successful couple’s relationship development because
tively envision and narrate how to best grow this core. Couples
it underscores the power a couple has to shape their inner
may ask, what is the innermost positive core or soul of our rela-
world of attitudes, beliefs, expectations, shared symbols, cel-
tionships? When is it most present for us? What gives it life?
ebrations, and meanings through their ongoing interactions
What helps it grow? What creative and artistic tools do we have
and communications, for better or for worse, as they engage
at our disposition to reinforce our positive core? What mental,
in developing intimacy and the relationship’s and family’s
emotional, and physical props and scaffolds can we utilize to
unique culture (Gottman, Driver, & Tabares, 2002; Gottman
strengthen it every day?
& Schwartz Gottman, 2008).
Thus instead of focusing mostly on minimizing and reme-
diating existing problems and preventing future problems, cou-
AI. The AI orientation, designed by David Cooperrider and
ples working with the soul mates model intentionally choose a
his associates as a group inquiry process for organizational
positive core that works (such as developing their talents, inti-
development (and long-term couples’ relationships can effec-
macy, love, or soul) to expand. They ask ‘‘What strength (from
tively be conceptualized as small organizations with distinct
the positive core) can be born and grown out of this problem?
organizational ‘‘cultures’’) states that ‘‘co-inquiry into the true,
How can this growth be encouraged?’’
the good, the better, and the possible will lead to faster, more
democratic and energized change than will deficit-based inquiry
Postmodern. Within the context of successful couple’s rela- into the broken and the problematic’’ (Cooperrider, cited in
tionship development the postmodern orientation—which is Watkins, & Mohr, 2001, p. XXIX). AI is a philosophy of change
particularly salient to helping professionals trained in multicul- and a practical application (Watkins & Mohr, 2001) focused on
tural and diversity competence (ACA, 2005; Sue & Sue, revolutionizing the old paradigm based on the unwritten rule ‘‘to
2007)—becomes one of inclusivity and embrace of the diverse fix what’s wrong and let the strengths take care of themselves’’
and variegated nature and dynamics of the contemporary (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005, p. 2). It focuses instead on ‘‘past
couple’s relationship. From this philosophical vantage point, the and present achievements, unexplored potentials, innovations,
traditional, positivist, marriage-centric (Del Rio & Mieling, strengths, elevated thoughts, opportunities, benchmarks, high
2010; Gurman, 2008), heterocentric, sex-essentialist, and at point moments, lived values, traditions, core and distinctive
times religiously inspired models for couples dynamics and competencies, expressions of wisdom . . . that inspire and
long-term success of past centuries are seen as increasingly motivate participants to develop their relationship’s positive
insufficient to guide contemporary relationship development. core’’ (Cooperrider et al., 2008, p. 3) and thus promote positive
The soul mates model, in contrast, provides an alternative change in themselves, their relationships, and the world at large.
designed to serve all couples, regardless of age, culture, marital The soul mates model includes this framework in that it provides
status, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation. practitioners and couples with a blueprint or conceptual map
De La Lama et al. 287

ready to guide the application of AI’s 4-D cycle intervention (Crain, 2005(Feist & Feist, 2002), and how this leads toward
(Cooperrider et al., 2008) to work on expanding a selected pos- greater wholeness and individuation; (b) the concept of the
itive core and privilege stories of what worked in the past, what shadow, a psychodynamic conglomerate of ‘‘traits and feelings
works in the present, and what positive possibilities may be we cannot admit to ourselves . . . [and which is] opposite to our
actualized in the future. ego or self-image’’ (Crain, 2005, p. 338), that should be con-
sciously explored, addressed, and integrated into the self-
concept; (c) The concept that a committed relationship between
Therapeutic Frameworks two partners invariably constellates an interactive field, in which
Narrative therapy. The narrative therapy orientation the inner opposites and shadows come alive, interact, and gener-
(Freedman & Combs, 2008; Goldenberg & Goldenberg, ate the powerful dynamics that fuel the relationship (Edinger,
2004; White, 2007), when applied to couple’s lives, asserts that 1994, 1995; Jung, 1966/1992; Schwartz-Salant, 1998).
the stories individuals, couples, families, and society tell about
what it means to be a couple have immense power to shape the Jung’s mythopoeia and the soul mates model. Throughout his
couple’s identity and experience (Cooperrider et al., 2008; career, Jung worked on deciphering the hidden archetypal
Long & Young, 2007; Payne, 2006; White, 2007; Whitney & meanings of the symbols, teachings, and metaphors of the
Trosten-Bloom, 2010). Consequently, it is essential that part- Western esoteric tradition, including renaissance alchemy, and
ners actively work to uncover, deliberately develop, and privi- combined his findings with select psychodynamic and develop-
lege positive narratives of what works best in their lives. mental concepts, successfully integrating them into 20th cen-
Practitioners of the soul mates model inquire what stories are tury psychology and psychotherapy (Jung, 1968, 1983, 1989).
we telling about ourselves, about each other, about us? What His work, in combination with the rich imagery of renaissance
stories do we want to tell and why? What stories do we want alchemy thus provides the contemporary practitioner with a
to be a part of? What does this say about us? What social nar- wellspring of visual symbols, metaphors, and images to help
ratives about our relationship do we want to privilege and why? guide individual and couple’s growth and development, such
What does this say about us? as the metaphor of the alchemical conjunctio about the
integration of the inner masculine and feminine opposites
Gottman method. The Gottman method for couples therapy (Edinger, 1994), which leads to the creation of the philoso-
(Gottman, 2011; Gottman & Schwartz Gottman, 2008) pher’s stone, a metaphorical substance that turns metaphorical
includes several useful concepts that inform the soul mates lead, or the dross of life, into the gold of spiritual achievement
model’s tasks, including (a) creating a love map of one’s part- and the completion of the great work or magnum opus. These
ner’s inner world, (b) honoring one another’s life dreams, and three metaphors are relevant to couple’s long-term relation-
‘‘building the [couple’s] shared meaning system by establish- ship development because they suggest that the ultimate goal
ing formal and informal rituals of connection, supporting one of a couple’s union is its inner marriage or conjunctio, the
another’s life roles, creating shared goals and values, and ‘‘great work’’ of building an integrated inner world of love,
common views of symbols’’ (Gottman & Schwartz Gottman, intimacy, and meaning, in dedication to a cause that may
2008, p. 140), and (c) responding positively to the partner’s include but also transcend self and family, an inner union the
bids for connection, and turning toward the partner emotion- couple builds and sustains throughout their entire lifetime, of
ally (Gottman, 2011), which is important to soul mates which the outer commitment ceremony or marriage is but the
model practitioners because this feeds and nurtures the rela- humble yet necessary beginning (Edinger, 1994; Jung, 1989;
tionship’s interactive field (Schwartz-Salant, 1998) with pos- Schwartz-Salant, 1998).
itive meaning.

Jungian analytic psychology. Although Jungian analytic psy- Pictogram for the Soul Mates Model
chology is best known as a psychodynamic orientation in that
Descriptive images or pictograms are helpful to engage both
it focuses on bringing unconscious forces into conscious aware-
sides of the brain in memorizing complex models. Renaissance
ness, it is also inherently developmental (Crain, 2005) and
alchemist count Michael Maier’s emblem XXI, Squaring the
holistic, in that it provides a road map for adults to develop into
Circle provides a useful pictogram for the soul mates model, if
fully individuated and holistically integrated individuals who
the words man and woman in Maier’s corresponding motto are
endeavor to know and integrate all levels of their self, from the
taken to denote the archetypal masculine and feminine forces,
most material and mundane to the most abstract, archetypal,
predominantly expressed by each of the partners, regardless of
and spiritual (Feist & Feist, 2002; Jung, 1968, 1983, 1990). The
their biological sex (Figures 1 and 2; Tables 1 and 2).
core concepts of Jungian analytic psychology that are most
relevant to successful couple’s relationship development
include (a) the integration of the inherent masculine and femi-
nine intrapsychic duality, represented within the Jungian
Characteristics of the Soul Mates Model
framework as the countersexual image, the inner feminine or This model has salient characteristics that set it apart from
anima in men, and the inner masculine or animus in women other models:
288 The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 20(3)

Table 1. Correlating the Soul Mates Model to Maier’s Pictogram

(Please note that most 20th century relationship models focus on the first four stages and provide little guidance for the crucial relationships
phase that ensues after survival and family building needs are met.)
Stage 1: Dating: the man and the woman

Stage 2: Commitment, the pair draws the circle of commitment around their relationship

Stage 3: Intimacy, the pair fills the circle of commitment with intimate knowing and love

Stage 4: Building a life, the pair draws the square, grounds their vision in physical reality

Stage 5: Integrating the shadow, the pair stuck in the square, must integrate shadow, rise upward.

Stage 6: Renewal, the pair draws the upward pointing triangle of higher aspiration, transcendence.

Stage 7: Completion, sustainability, flourishing, the pair draws the larger circle of completion, sustainability, and flourishing around their
relationship, engages in the great work.

Table 2. The Soul Mates Model’s Seven Stages and Their Tasks

Stage 1: Dating
 Find an appealing partner who is interested, willing, and capable to mate not only physically and emotionally but also intellectually,
ideologically, and spiritually
Stage 2: Commitment
 Reciprocally commit to an exclusive relationship
 Begin to develop the relationship’s internal locus of control (What are we about? What do we want to be about?)
 Create the relationship’s vision, mission, and goals
 Balance the autonomy and the togetherness drives and the stability and developmental/growth drives
Stage 3: Intimacy
 Develop intimacy of body, emotions, mind, meaning, spirituality, and self-transcendence
 Develop the interactive field by exploring and mapping each other’s inner worlds
 Engage in self-reflection, critical self-reflection, and self-revelation to the partner
 Build meaning by tying events in the landscape of action to the landscape of identity
Stage 4: Building a life
 Secure survival, build a home, and create a family.
 Learn to make adaptive life, relationship, and family building and sustaining choices
 Explore the outer world individually and jointly; process these experiences by reflecting and critically reflecting on these experiences
individually and jointly to create ‘‘positive entanglement,’’ further develop the interactive field, and strengthen the relationship’s internal
locus of control
 Build the relationship’s culture and emotional coherence through couple and family activities, symbols, and rituals
Stage 5: Integrating the shadow, rising from the square
 Reframe emotional stalemate and meaninglessness as developmental crisis calling for inner work
 Disentangle from distracting and counterproductive ideologies and unexamined cultural beliefs
 Take an existential stance, forgiving self, partner, others, and life at large
 Address and treat psychological dysfunctions, seek professional help where needed
 Free energy and resources by letting go of physical, emotional, conceptual, and ideological baggage
 Start to focus on a cause greater than self and family to serve individually and jointly
Stage 6: Renewal
 Focus on serving a cause greater than self and family, individually and jointly
 Follow main tenets of posttraumatic growth: Reevaluate close relationships, philosophy of life, and spirituality. Reevaluate relationship vision,
mission, and goals
 Rebuild the interactive field with new awareness, content, love, and care
 Reevaluate resources and devise a new path for individual and joint action
 If spiritual or religious, renew spiritual practice
Stage 7: Soul mating completion, flourishing, and sustainability
 Apply the strengths and skills developed in earlier stages to ensure the relationship’s long-term success, sustainability, and flourishing
 Deliberately direct body/actions, emotions, mind, and creativity away from what is unwanted, toward what is desired and wanted in the
present and in the future.
 Continue to serve a cause greater than self and family to participate in the great work and leave a legacy.
De La Lama et al. 289

 It is holistic, developmental, positive, strengths based, and education programs and interventions, graduate level courses,
future oriented. wellness and positive psychology-oriented research, as well
 It addresses gender dynamics from a subjective, flexible, as couples’ workshops and retreats.
nonessentialist perspective.
 It focuses on a reciprocal commitment of the couple’s choice Declaration of Conflicting Interests
that may or may not include marriage (instead of privileging The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
marriage). the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
 It is present and future oriented as it focuses on actively
developing intimacy, the internal locus of control, and
Funding
the interactive field (instead of focusing on processing psy-
chological issues stemming from attachment problems, The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article
childhood traumas, or family of origin issues from the past).
 It focuses on promoting the development of higher mean-
ing, deeper mutual knowing, and a meeting and mating of References
the heart, mind, and soul (instead of focusing predomi- ACA. (2005). Code of ethics: American Counseling Association.
nantly on upholding marriage vows, and preventing prob- Alexandria, VA.
lems and infidelity). American Holistic Medical Association. (2008). Retrieved November
 It addresses the spiritual or religious couple’s spirituality, and 29, 2008, from http://www.holisticmedicine.org/
the atheist/agnostic couple’s need for self-transcendence as a Batthyany-De La Lama, L., & De La Lama, L. (2007). Trauma, trans-
strength to develop and apply. formative learning and posttraumatic growth: the Holistic model
 It is inclusive in that it applies to all committed couples’ of relevance. Paper presented at the American Counseling Associ-
unions, regardless of marital status, religious affiliation, or ation. Convention, Detroit, MI.
sexual orientation. Batthyany-De La Lama, L., & De La Lama, L. (2008). From sex to
intimacy to soulmating: 7 steps to lasting and fulfilling relation-
ships Paper presented at the American Counseling Association
Limitations of the Soul Mates Model
Convention Honolulu, HI.
Due to the model’s inclusive and postmodern orientation that Batthyany-De La Lama, L., & De La Lama, L. (2009). Holistic and
focuses on a reciprocal commitment of choice instead of privi- transformative learning practices for both sides of the brain. Paper
leging marriage, this model may not be suitable for religiously presented at the Association for Counselor Education and Supervi-
oriented therapists, or for religious fundamentalist clients sion Conference, San Diego, CA.
whose religion dictates that intimate couples be married and Batthyany-De La Lama, L., & De La Lama, L. (2011). Smart Soul-
heterosexual. Moreover, due to the model’s predominant pres- mates—Successful couples relationships: A 7-Stage developmental
ent and future orientation, it may be unsuitable for those thera- model for long-term relationship success. Paper presented at the
pists who rely on interventions that focus largely on attachment 119 Anual Convention of the American Psychological Association,
theory and the psychodynamic processing of difficult and unre- Washington, DC.
solved childhood and family issues. Biederman, H. (2006). Materia Prima: Die Geheimbilder der
Alchemie. Wiesbaden, Germany: Marixverlag.
Brookfield, S. D. (2000). Transformative learning as ideology cri-
Discussion, Application, and Conclusion tique. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical
The soul mates model for couple’s relationship development perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 125–150). San Francisco,
provides a broad and integrative view of the cotemporary cou- CA: Jossey Bass.
ple’s relationship life cycle, its stages, and tasks. It also points Brookfield, S. D. (2005). The power of critical theory: Liberating
to the challenges couples must face and overcome to succeed adult learning and teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
and flourish in the long term. Counselors, therapists, and coa- Cherlin, A. J. (2009). The marriage -go-round: The state of marriage
ches may use the soul mates model as a tool to organize and and the family in America today. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
focus the therapeutic strategies and interventions they already Coontz, S. (2005). Marriage, a history. New York, NY: Viking.
use and to develop new interventions derived from the model’s Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2008). Appreciative
stages and task. Researchers in counseling, marriage and fam- inquiry handbook for leaders of change (2nd ed.). Brunswick, OH:
ily therapy, and other helping professions may use the model to Crown Custom Publishing.
inform qualitative and quantitative research designs. The Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. K. (2005). Appreciative
model can be used to inform the development of measurement inquiry: a positive revolution in change (1st ed.). San Francisco,
scales to assess the skills and strengths couples may need to CA: Berrett-Koehler.
develop in order to complete the developmental tasks deli- Covey, S. R. (1991). Principle-centered leadership. New York, NY:
neated by the model and thus help practitioners better target Simon & Schuster.
their interventions. Due to the model’s positive orientation, it Crain, W. (2005). Theories of development (5th ed.). Saddle River, NJ:
is well suited to inform relationship coaching, marriage Prentice Hall.
290 The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 20(3)

Cranton, P. (1994). Understanding and promoting transformative Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Immunity to change. Boston, MA:
learning: a guide for educators of adults. San Francisco, CA: Jos- Harvard Business School.
sey-Bass. Kerr, M. E., & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation. New York, NY:
Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transformative W.W. Norton.
learning (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Koepsell, D. R., & Mercurio-Riley. (2008). The practice of
Del Rio, C. M., & Mieling, G. G. (2010). ‘‘Marriage’’ Misnames marriage and family counseling and humanism. In J. Duba One-
‘‘Couples’’ and Familial Therapies. [MFT & Couples]. The Family dera (Ed.), The role of religion in marriage and family counsel-
Journal, 18, 169–177. doi:10.1177/1066480710364331 ing (pp. 165–180). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Edinger, E. (1994). The mystery of the conjunctio: Alchemical image Long, L. L., & Young, M. E. (2007). Counseling and therapy for
of individuation. Toronto, Canada: Inner City Books. couples (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Edinger, E. (1995). The mysterium lectures. Toronto, Canada: Inner McAuliffe, G. (2011). Constructing counselor education. In G. McAuliffe
City Books. & K. Eriksen (Eds.), Handbook of counselor preparation: Constructi-
Feist, J., & Feist, G. J. (2002). Theories of personality (5th ed.). New vist, developmental, and experiential approaches (pp. 3–12). Los
York, NY: McGraw Hill. Angeles, CA: Sage.
Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (2008). Narrative couple therapy. In A. S. McAuliffe, G., & Ericksen, K. (2002). Teaching strategies for con-
Gurman (Ed.), Handbook of couple therapy (pp. 229–258). New structivist and developmental counselor education. Westport,
York, NY: The Guilford Press. CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Gergen, K. J. (2009). Relational Being. Oxford, England: Oxford Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2006).
Unviersity Press. Learning in Adulthood (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Goldenberg, I., & Goldenberg, H. (2004). Family therapy. Pacific Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gottman, J. M. (2011). The science of trust. New York, NY: W.W. Nakamura, J. (2011). Contexts of positive adult development. In
Norton & Company. S. I. Donaldson, M. Csikszentmihalyi & J. Nakamura (Eds.),
Gottman, J. M., Driver, J., & Tabares, A. (2002). Building the sound Applied positive psychology (pp. 185–202). New York, NY:
marital house: An empirically derived couple therapy. In A. S. Routledge.
Gurman, & N. S. Jacobson (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple Neimeyer, R. (2009). Constructivist psychotherapy. New York, NY:
therapy (3rd ed., pp. 373–399). New York, NY: The Guilford Routledge.
Press. Newman, B. M., & Newman, P. R. (2007). Theories of human devel-
Gottman, J. M., & Schwartz Gottman, J. (2008). Gottman method cou- opment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates Inc.
ple therapy. In A. S. Gurman (Ed.), Handbook of couple therapy Northhouse, P. G. (2009). Introduction to leadership concepts and
(pp. 138–166). New York, NY: The Guildford Press. practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Guiffrida, D. A. (2005). The Emergence model: An alternative peda- Papalia, D. E., Wendkos Olds, S., & Duskin Feldman, R. (2004).
gogy for facilitating self-reflection and theoretical fit in counseling Human development (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
students. Counselor education and supervision, 44, 201–213. Pargament, K. I. (2007). Spiritually integrated psychotherapy. New
Gurman, A. S. (2008). A framework for the comparative study of cou- York, NY: The Guilford Press.
ple therapy. In A. S. Gurman (Ed.), Clinical handbook of couple Pargament, K. I., Desai, K. M., & McConnell, K. M. (2006).
therapy (4th ed., pp. 1–26). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Spirituality: A pathway to posttraumatic growth or decline? In L.
Illouz, E. (1997). Consuming the romantic utopia: Love and the cul- G. C. a. R. G Tedeshi. (Ed.), Handbook of posttraumatic growth
tural contradictions of capitalism. Berkeley, CA: Univerity of (pp. 121–137). Mahwa, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
California Press. Payne, M. (2006). Narrative therapy (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
Isopahkala-Bouret, U. (2008). Transformative learning in managerial Penn, M. J., & Zalesne, E. K. (2007). Microtrends. New York, NY:
role transitions. Studies in continuing education, 301, 69–84. Twelve.
Jung, C. G. (1966/1992). Psychology of the transference. New York, Quinn, R. E. (2004). Building the bridge as you walk on it. San Fran-
NY: Bollingen Foundation. cisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Jung, C. G. (1968). Psychology and alchemy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Santrock, J. W. (1999). Life-Span development (7th ed.). New York,
University Press. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Jung, C. G. (1983). Alchemical studies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni- Schnarch, D. (2009). Intimacy and desire. New York, NY: Beaufort
versity Press. Books.
Jung, C. G. (1989). Mysterium coniunctionis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Schwartz-Salant, N. (1998). The mystery of human relationships:
University Press. Alchemy and the transformation of the self. New York, NY:
Jung, C. G. (1990). The basic writings of C. G. Jung. Princeton, NJ: Routledge.
Princeton University Press. Seligman, M. E. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of
Kegan, R. (2000). What form transforms? A constructive develop- happiness and wellbeing. New York, NY: Free Press.
mental approach to transformative learning. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Serlin, I. (2005). Religious and spiritual issues in couples therapy. In
Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in M. Harway (Ed.), Handbook of Couples Therapy (pp. 352–369).
progress (pp. 35–70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
De La Lama et al. 291

Shannon, S. (2002). Integration and holism. In S. Shannon (Ed.), Tsoi-Hoshmand, T. L. (2004). The transformative potential of counsel-
Handbook of complementary and alternative therapies in mental ing education. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education, and
health. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Development, 43, 82–90.
Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (2005). Handbook of positive psychology. Tyack, D., & Hansot, E. (1992). Learning together. New York, NY:
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Russel Sage Foundation.
Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2007). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory Van Acker, E. (2008). Governments and marriage education policy.
and practice (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. New York, NY: Palgrave McMillan.
Taylor, E. W. (2008). Transformative Learning Theory. New Direction Watkins, J. M., & Mohr, B. J. (2001). Appreciative inquiry - change
for Adult and Continuing Education, 119, 5–15. at the speed of imagination. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Taylor, K., Marienau, C., & Fiddler, M. (2000). Developping adult White, M. (2007). Maps of narrative practice. New York, NY: W.W.
learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Norton.
Thornton, A., Axinn, W. G., & Xie, Y. (2007). Marriage and cohabi- Whitney, D., & Trosten-Bloom, A. (2010). The power of appreciative
tation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler Publishers Inc.

View publication stats