It is still strange to me that I am in school to become a therapist.
Not because I do not believe I can do it. The farther I get into the program, the more I can see how much of my life has prepared me for this work. That may be the irony. I entered therapy school expecting to learn an entirely new language, and I am learning one, but I also keep discovering formal names for things I have spent years trying to understand in myself.
I have spent much of my life examining the difference between what happens to us and the stories we construct around what happens. I have thought about the loops we repeat, the wounds we protect, the relationships we cling to, the futures we assume have already been decided, and the strange little moments when a life that seems stuck suddenly moves in another direction.
I have been adopted. I have lived with bipolar disorder and through hospitalizations. I have been a son, a brother, a husband, a father, a patient, a writer, and a person trying to make sense of himself after cancer and grief arrived together. None of those experiences automatically qualifies me to guide anyone else. Pain is not a degree, and surviving something does not make a person an expert on everybody who has suffered.
But my life has taught me to look for the moment when the path changes.
I have started calling that moment the Swerve.
The Running Back
The image came to me partly through football, which is funny because I am not a particularly devoted football fan. But I have always loved watching a running back carry the ball toward another human being whose immediate purpose is to stop him.
Sometimes the runner lowers his shoulder and charges straight ahead. Sometimes that works. Sometimes he gets flattened.
But then there are those other plays. The runner sees the defender. For a fraction of a second, you can almost watch the calculation happen in his eyes. He knows what he has done before. He sees what the other person expects him to do. He reads the space, changes direction, and suddenly the collision that appeared inevitable does not happen.
That is the Swerve.
It is not random movement. It is not running away from the field. It is not pretending the defender is not there. The runner cannot control the defender, the weather, the blocking, the score, the injuries, or every other person moving around him. He does not get to invent an unlimited field.
But he may have more than one route.
The Swerve is the moment a person recognizes that the path already underneath their feet is not the only path still available.
That sounds simple. Sometimes it is. Most of the time it is not.
People run the same plays because those plays have protected them before. We learn how to withdraw before somebody can reject us. We attack before we can be embarrassed. We make jokes before anyone can see that we are hurt. We cling to relationships because even an unhappy relationship can feel safer than the loneliness beyond it. We tell ourselves that we are being realistic when we may actually be repeating a prediction so old that we no longer remember choosing it.
The familiar play may not be good, but it is familiar. We know where the collision will happen. We know which bruise comes next.
The unfamiliar opening requires us to move without knowing the result.
We Cannot See Every Play We Have
I believe people need to see themselves as creators of their lives, but I do not mean that we create every circumstance that confines us. That would be both foolish and cruel.
People do not create poverty, illness, disability, discrimination, grief, abuse, or all the choices other people make around them. Some people are born onto a field with far more room than others. Some are handed protection, training, money, health, and a crowd cheering for them. Others begin the play already injured and surrounded.
Agency does not mean pretending those differences are imaginary.
It means refusing to confuse limited control with no control at all.
We are not the sole authors of everything that happens to us, but we can sometimes become more active authors of what we do next. The available choice may be enormous. It may be leaving a marriage, changing a career, entering treatment, telling the truth, or beginning again. It may also be so small that another person would barely recognize it as change.
That does not make it meaningless.
I believe every life can be improved in some way. Some improvements appear much less significant from the outside than others. If a person is confined to a bed, finding the right pillow could be life-altering. That pillow may reduce pain enough for the person to sleep. Sleep may make conversation possible. Conversation may make the day feel less lonely. The smallest physical comfort may create the first available opening in a life that has become almost unbearable.
When the destination is impossible to see, we have to keep the first Swerve as small as the pillow.
The Hell of Being Alone
I have thought about isolation for most of my life. Some of that goes back to my obsession with Metallica’s “One” and its video, with the soldier trapped inside his own body and separated from the world while remaining terribly conscious of it.
That image horrified me. It still does.
Death has lived close to the surface of my thinking for much of my life. There were periods when my writing felt less like a record of living than part of the long suicide note I imagined my life becoming. Even now, I am frequently aware that I could die—that I am, at minimum, not dead yet. That awareness can become bleak and reductive. “At least you aren’t dead” would be a terrible therapeutic philosophy because survival alone does not make suffering acceptable. But mortality has also taught me to protect and invest in what I love. Perhaps that is why every post feels important while I am writing it: each one records the life I am actually inhabiting in that moment.
I have learned how to entertain myself. I have spent a lot of time inside my own head, sometimes productively and sometimes very much not. But I do not think people fully appreciate the hell that loneliness can become—the feeling of being unreachable even when other people are nearby, or of believing that no one can enter the place where you actually live.
That is one reason people cling to relationships that make them unhappy. I do not blame them for that. The relationship may hurt, but it may also be the last thing standing between them and an emptiness they fear even more. Telling someone to “just leave” can ignore the emotional, financial, cultural, practical, and existential reality of what leaving means.
At the same time, staying is also a choice with consequences. So is refusing to examine the pattern. So is waiting forever for another person to make the first move.
Every life is an individual life. Every person eventually has to take some ownership of what remains within their control, even when the available control is painfully small.
The Swerve begins by asking: What is still possible here?
Not what should be possible in a fair world. Not what somebody else accomplished in a supposedly similar situation. Not what would make the most impressive story.
What is actually possible here, for this person, in this moment?
A Guide Without a Destination
This is where my idea becomes complicated now that I am studying to become a therapist.
I do not want to sit completely detached from another person’s story, nod thoughtfully, and pretend that neutrality is the same thing as care. If I can see a possibility that the person in front of me cannot currently see, I want to help make it visible.
But I also cannot take ownership of that person’s life.
The word guide comes close to how I imagine the role, but a guide usually has a destination in mind. I do not want to decide the destination. I want to help keep possibility in view.
That means listening for abilities people dismiss. It means noticing the exceptions that do not fit their worst conclusions about themselves. It means asking what happened during the one conversation that did not become a fight, the one afternoon that did not feel empty, or the one decision that made life slightly more bearable. It can also mean offering an idea—with permission—when someone has become trapped inside a closed map of the future.
The purpose is not to say, “Here is the life you should build.”
It is to say, “The life you can currently imagine may not be the only life available. Can we look at the field together?”
The person still gets to reject the idea. They may reshape it into something I would never have imagined. They may decide that the risk is too high or the timing is wrong. They may choose a destination that would not be my choice.
That does not mean the work failed.
The Swerve is not obedience. It is an expansion of possibility followed by choice.
The Danger in Me
I can already see the danger my personality may bring into this work.
I become invested in people. I see patterns quickly, or at least I think I do. I generate possibilities. When I care about somebody, I can begin imagining the story I want to happen for them. Once I can see that story, I can become impatient when they do not move toward it.
That is not always belief in the other person. Sometimes it is me becoming attached to my own prediction.
I worry about showing disappointment when someone does not give the response I hoped to lead them toward. I worry about becoming parental—about turning care into expectation and expectation into an invisible demand that someone perform progress for me.
That would recreate the very problem I claim to be addressing. I would be replacing the person’s constricted story with mine.
My discipline will have to be learning how to remain invested in the person without becoming invested in a predetermined result.
I can hold an expectation of possibility without demanding performance. I can believe that someone has capacities their current behavior does not show without requiring those capacities to appear on my timetable. I can offer energy without making another person responsible for rewarding me with change.
If I feel disappointed, that feeling should become information for me—not a burden for the other person to carry.
Whose goal am I pursuing? Did the person actually choose it? Am I working harder for the change than they are? Am I confusing fear with unwillingness? Am I calling the person resistant because my idea did not fit? Am I moving toward the radical transformation because it excites me while overlooking the pillow-sized change they can tolerate now?
I do not need to stop caring. I need to surrender ownership of the ending.
The Bundys Are Stuck in a Sitcom
For one of my school assignments, I am applying my developing theory to Al and Peggy Bundy from Married… with Children. They may sound like ridiculous people to bring into a serious discussion about relationships, and they are ridiculous. That is the point of the show.
They are also perfect for thinking about the Swerve because sitcom characters are designed not to change.
They can learn something on Tuesday and return to the same baseline next week. Their conflicts must remain renewable. Al has to keep hating his job. Peggy has to keep spending. They have to keep insulting each other. Their children have to keep participating in the same family culture. If the Bundys achieved sustained growth, the machinery of the show would stop working.
Therapy asks the question the sitcom cannot: What happens if these people are finally allowed to change?
Al and Peggy both live inside stories of deprivation.
Al’s story is that he once mattered. He was a football player. He had possibility, recognition, physical ability, and a future. Now he sells women’s shoes, struggles financially, and experiences his family as the reason his meaningful life disappeared. He retreats into football memories, sarcasm, television, complaints, and contempt.
Peggy’s story is that she is married to someone who no longer values, desires, or enjoys her. She pursues attention, sex, pleasure, and recognition, but often does it through criticism, pressure, spending, mockery, or provocation. She experiences herself as deprived. So does Al.
Each person keeps a different version of the same scorecard.
Al counts the hours worked, the money spent, the opportunities lost, and the respect he believes he is owed. Peggy counts the affection withheld, the attention denied, the experiences missed, and the years spent feeling unwanted. Each uses the evidence of their own suffering to invalidate the suffering of the other.
Al withdraws or attacks. Peggy feels rejected and escalates. Al experiences the escalation as proof that he is used and unappreciated. He withdraws further. Both believe the other person is causing the cycle, and both respond in ways that keep it alive.
Neither person is the entire problem. Neither person is free from responsibility.
Al’s Next Play
Al’s football past gives the Swerve an almost suspiciously perfect metaphor.
He treats football as proof that his best self existed a long time ago. The game represents the last time he remembers feeling competent, respected, physically powerful, and full of possibility. His memories preserve something real, but they also trap him. If the only meaningful version of Al is the teenage football player, then every adult day becomes evidence of decline.
But the show accidentally gives us evidence against that story.
In “Pump Fiction,” Al and his daughter Kelly make a short film about shoes. The project matters because it reveals capacities that Al’s dominant story ignores. He is creative. He can become motivated when a task feels meaningful. He can use knowledge from the job he hates. He can collaborate with his daughter. He can experience competence in the present rather than only remembering it from the past.
The conclusion is not that Al should become a filmmaker. That would be exactly the kind of imposed solution I want to avoid.
The better questions are these: What conditions brought that version of Al forward? Was it creativity? Recognition? Teamwork? Humor? The chance to make something rather than merely endure something? Where else might those conditions exist? What knowledge has he gained from selling shoes that he dismisses because he hates the meaning he has assigned to the job? What possibilities exist for advancing, reshaping, or emotionally containing his work? What could make life outside the job larger than the job itself?
Al does not have to recover his high-school life to recover the parts of himself that football represented.
He may not need a new field. He may need to recognize that he still knows how to move.
Peggy’s Next Play
Peggy cannot exist in this analysis only as the person reacting to Al. That would simply turn him into the important character and make her another condition on his field.
Peggy also has strengths hidden inside the pattern. She is persistent. She is socially confident. She is funny. She rejects being completely defined by conventional expectations. She continues reaching for affection instead of disappearing entirely from the relationship. Her pursuit can become destructive, but it also reveals that she still wants something from life.
The question is what she wants beyond forcing Al to provide it.
Kelly and Bud are close to the age when children begin building lives outside the family home. They may not be following an elegant college-bound path, but the family is approaching a transition. Eventually, the children will need their parents differently. Al and Peggy may have more time, more freedom, and fewer daily responsibilities. They may also lose the buffer that has allowed them to avoid deciding what their marriage is.
Peggy needs a future that is more developed than waiting for Al to become affectionate. What interests, relationships, work, pleasures, or ambitions might have room when the children leave? What does being wanted mean beyond getting a reaction from her husband? Who is she when she is not performing the established role of Peggy Bundy?
Al needs the same questions.
They both have to decide whether they want to reconnect at all. If they do, what would they be reconnecting around? What would a happy medium actually require from each of them? What should the next lineup of their life look like?
The answer may be recommitment. It may be a less conventional companionship. It may be greater independence inside the marriage. It may be separation after the children move out. Separation would not automatically mean that the therapy failed. Keeping two people together in a relationship they have consciously decided not to continue is not success merely because the marriage remains intact.
The Swerve does not choose togetherness over separation. It chooses examination over inevitability.
Watching the Game Film
The advantage I have with the Bundys is that I can watch the show. I can see what Al does when Peggy is not in the room. I can watch Peggy’s face after Al turns away. I can gather scenes from multiple perspectives and pretend, for the assignment, that I have access to the family from the outside.
Real life does not work like that.
When a person sits across from me, I will know only what they are able and willing to tell me, what they remember, and what their present story allows them to notice. Even when two people describe the same argument, I will not have access to a perfect recording of the truth.
But I will have something.
I can listen for what each person notices and omits. I can observe what happens between them in the room. I can hear the phrases that keep returning. I can ask what happened immediately before the part of the story they usually begin with. I can notice when their accounts collide and when they unexpectedly agree. I can remain curious about what I am not being shown without assuming that I possess a secret, superior version of their lives.
In that sense, therapy can become a place to watch relational game film together.
Right there—what did you see coming?
What did you expect the other person to do?
What did you do to protect yourself?
What happened next?
What other play existed in that moment?
What would it cost to try it?
No one has to agree that the new play is correct. We can try something small, observe what changes, and learn from the result. An unsuccessful experiment is still information. It may tell us that the timing was wrong, the risk was too high, the other person did not cooperate, the idea did not fit, or the problem was different from what we thought.
A Swerve does not guarantee an open field. It interrupts the assumption that the collision is unavoidable.
The Smallest Meaningful Change
I am drawn to transformation. I like the big realization, the rewritten story, the moment when somebody sees ten futures where they previously saw none.
That attraction is another reason I have to remember the pillow.
Not everyone is ready for the most radical available change. Sometimes people do not want it. Sometimes they lack the energy, money, safety, support, health, or confidence to sustain it. Sometimes the behavior that looks irrational from the outside is still doing an important protective job.
We need an order of importance, but there is no universal guidepost that ranks one person’s changes for them.
Safety comes first when danger is present. After that, the question may be what makes life more bearable today. Then we can ask what remains within the person’s control, what reduces isolation, what pattern keeps recreating the pain, and what larger possibility becomes visible once the immediate suffering has eased.
For Al and Peggy, the larger possibility might be rebuilding or ending their marriage. The first Swerve might simply be completing one conversation without humiliation.
For another person, the larger possibility may not be visible yet.
Find the pillow.
Find the phone call.
Find the meal, the boundary, the hour of sleep, the honest sentence, the chair by the window, the five minutes outside, or the one person who makes the world feel less empty.
Small does not mean trivial. It means available.
We Are Still on the Field
I am still developing the Swerve. I do not mean it as a newly discovered clinical model or a branded answer to human suffering. It is the name I am giving to a way of seeing change that has emerged from my life, my writing, my education, and the theories I am now studying.
It begins with stories because stories determine what we believe is possible. It becomes practical because insight without movement can become another place to hide. It is relational because every movement changes the field for somebody else. And it remains humble because no guide can fully know another person’s destination.
I want to become someone who helps people see more openings without pretending every opening is safe or available. I want to care without taking over. I want to challenge without becoming another disappointed authority figure. I want to remain capable of imagining a better life for someone while remembering that it is their life—not the story I want to tell about saving them.
Every person is moving through conditions they did not completely choose. Every person has learned plays that once served a purpose. Every person will sometimes charge straight toward the same collision because it is the only route they can see.
But the field is still moving.
The next response has not happened yet.
There may be another opening.
Sometimes it is wide enough to transform a life.
Sometimes it is only as wide as the right pillow.
Either one can be a Swerve.
Frank M. Anderson's Writing 
Leave a comment