Escaping the Victim Role

Interpersonal Roles, Personal Conflict, Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The current post identifies features of the Victim role and explores strategies for escaping this role. This draws upon the vicious cycle patterns addressed in a previous post, including Steven Karpman’s Persecutor – Victim – Rescuer cycle, cited in Games Alcoholics Play, by Claude Steiner. Most people are probably familiar enough with the Victim role so that it needs no introduction. If you haven’t fallen into that role yourself, you no doubt have encountered others who have. Or perhaps you have been cast in the complementary role of either the Oppressor or the Enabler in dealing with the Victim role. Of course, your familiarity with the subject won’t stop me from sharing my ideas about it.

Defining the Victim Role

The Victim role represents a particular response to suffering. This might be described through the questions, “Why is this happening to me, of all people?” and “What did I ever do to deserve this?” Implied in such questions is an assumption that life should be fair, and that we should get our just desserts without having to struggle for them. This sentiment is so common that Rabbi Harold Kushner wrote an entire book, Why Bad Things Happen to Good People, to address it.

The Victim Role in Relation to the Oppressor Role

While the Victim role is sometimes adopted in reaction to events such as illness, accidents, and natural disasters, more often it is a response to the actions of others who are seen as intentionally abusive or unjust. This frequently involves establishing relatively enduring interaction patterns between the Victim and the Oppressor, as discussed in my page, Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships 2.0. Below is a diagram illustrating a common interplay between the Victim and the Critic, a relatively benign variation on the Oppressor role.critic-victim-cycle1

Here, Victims view their Oppressors as powerful and controlling, and in turn see themselves as powerless, helpless, and hopeless. These perceptions often serve as self-fulfilling prophecies, as they encourage Victims to practice avoidant and accommodating styles of dealing with conflict in relationships. In the process, other styles for dealing with conflict get neglected, resulting in a deficit of assertiveness and conflict-resolution skills: if you don’t use it, you lose it. In turn, the lack of such skills makes one all the more vulnerable to oppression by others.

Self-empowerment as an Escape Plan

The above description of the Victim role suggests self-empowerment as a means for escaping the role. This typically involves a willingness to engage in conflict rather than avoiding it or capitulating to the demands of others. Commitment to this approach is only a start – empowerment requires working smarter, not just harder. Not only can we work toward mastering the different interpersonal conflict strategies, addressed in a previous post, but we can also develop our understanding of when each is appropriate. Just as in football, where each side runs different plays depending on the game’s circumstances and the anticipated play of the opponent, strategy counts in conflict resolution. Perseverance counts, too: note that wars have been won even when the majority of the battles have gone to the other side. It is prudent to choose our battles, and to retreat in order to fight another day.

Knowledge is Power

Holding our own in conflicts may well depend upon our understanding not only of our adversaries, but also of ourselves. By understanding our adversaries, their weaknesses as well as their strengths, we can better judge when and where to use leverage effectively, and when and how to propose compromises from a position of strength. Stephen Mitchell’s translation of the Tao Te Ching notes the risk of underestimating one’s adversaries, such as by viewing them as evil. Such a simplistic perspective may blind us to the complexity of their perspectives and motivations, thus placing us at a disadvantage. Perhaps an even more difficult challenge is understanding ourselves: the Gospels note Jesus observing how it is easier to spot the splinter in another’s eye than to see the beam in our own. It is also quite helpful to understand how our interpersonal styles interact with the styles with others. My webpage, Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships 2.0, explores how certain common roles tend to interact with one other in a vicious cycle pattern. It offers some general suggestions for escaping the vicious cycle roles, regardless of the particular role one has assumed.

Shifting the Balance of Fight vs. Flight

Once one understands various aspects of a conflict, one can then put this understanding into practice through active engagement with one’s adversary. Here the motivational factor is quite relevant, with anger and fear being basic emotions involved. Anger charges us up to confront our adversaries, while fear serves to mobilize us to flee to escape danger. In evolutionary terms, our biological system is wired for a Fight vs. Flight reaction, which is appropriate for survival in life-or-death situations, but is excessive for most conflicts in civilized society. As we become more knowledgeable and skillful in dealing with interpersonal conflict, we become better able to stand our ground and assert our claims. Here, intense fear and anxiety can get in the way of this process by supporting old patterns of avoidance and submission. Anger can serve to override our fears and mobilize our active engagement in conflict, yet its intensity can be disruptive to the processes of negotiation and conflict resolution. Like steel, anger must be tempered to be used effectively. One strategy to accomplish this involves the use of meditation or other relaxation techniques to reduce the intensity of emotions from “so mad you can’t see straight” to a more moderate level.

Challenging the Attitudes That Incite Impotent Rage

In confronting our anger, we should recognize that our anger can be incited to rage not only through our more primitive Fight vs. Flight reaction, but also through our more advanced thought processes. This issue is addressed in a previous post, When Thinking Distorts Feelings. The post also presents a strategy for challenging some of the attitudes and underlying assumptions that fuel the fire of emotions, often to the point of their being disruptive rather than helpful (hence the term, “impotent rage”). By putting our anger and anxiety into proper perspective, we are better able to assert ourselves, rather than either going ballistic with rage or capitulating to our adversaries out of fear.

Developing a Positive and Realistic Perspective

There are other attitudes and expectations that often discourage us from asserting ourselves effectively in conflict. For one thing, it is pretty common to get discouraged when we stumble in our efforts to assert ourselves. We may need to remind ourselves that we can expect to make mistakes as we are practicing our newly learned assertion skills. We can reassure ourselves that these are only failures if we give up on the process. Furthermore, it helps to recognize that we can learn more from our mistakes than we can from our successes, unless we are blaming ourselves too harshly. It is also reassuring to know that progress is seldom linear, with it often involving two or three steps forward, followed by one or two steps back. We may also need to give ourselves permission to choose our battles, so that we might “live to fight another day.” We can also console ourselves with the recognition that wars have been won even when most of the battles went to the other side. Strategic retreat can be a valuable tactic, as long as it does not turn into unconditional surrender. Unless we adopt these attitudes, we run the risk of falling into the Critic role with ourselves, thus becoming “our own worst critics.”

How Do You Spell Relief?

Dealing with conflict is often a stressful experience, and strategic retreats to gain temporary relief can be valuable for sustaining our efforts. Here it is important to distinguish healthy outlets from those that actually “recycle” stress by providing temporary relief while worsening the overall situation. The latter often involve activities such as abusing substances, gambling, compulsive shopping, pornography, and comfort eating. Even when these outlets are pursued for strategic retreat, their emotional numbing and distraction often result in unconditional surrender through subsequent avoidance of the conflict. Furthermore, these outlets often give the Critic more ammunition with which to judge and blame the Victim, thus placing the Victim at an even greater disadvantage. Healthier outlets are available, though, with these generally fall into the categories of relaxation, recreation, exercise, and expression.

The Victim Role in Relation to the Enabler Role

Thus far, the Victim role has been defined in relation to the Oppressor role and its variants, such as the Critic, the Persecutor, and the Abuser. The Victim role is also defined through its interaction with another interpersonal role, that of the Rescuer or the Enabler, with this pattern diagrammed below.victim-enabler-cycle

In this particular pattern, Victims express themselves through complaints about unfair conditions in their lives. They frequently seek out some tangible support or relief. This may not be explicitly stated, and often does not need to be, as Enablers are ready to volunteer support without even being asked for it. The sought-after relief may take many forms: provision of a safe haven, advocacy in defense of the Victims, mediation to resolve the conflict, protection from the wrath of Critics or Persecutors, concealment of mistakes, accidents, or wrongdoings, or completing the Victims’ responsibilities for them. While Enablers practice and develop their own assertion, advocacy, and communication skills in fulfilling these functions, Victims are relieved of this responsibility and thus fail to practice and develop these skills for themselves. This leaves them less competent and all the more dependent on the generous support of the Enablers, as well as more susceptible to the scorn of the Critics.

The Escape: “Please, I Need to Do This Myself”

It should be fairly obvious from the above discussion that one means of escaping the Victim role is to resist seeking support or relief from Rescuers, when we are capable of fulfilling these functions for ourselves. This also involves declining the unsolicited offers of those services, as well. That may require considerable self-discipline: why go through all that hassle when someone else will do it for us? This does not mean that we cannot accept someone’s support, as long as we retain responsibility for our position. Taking this approach provides the practice required to develop competence, earn credibility, and empower ourselves.

Complaints: Communication without Personal Vulnerability

In voicing their complaints to their Enablers, Victims often focus on external circumstances, rather than sharing their own personal experiences. In doing so, Victims claim the moral high ground in focusing on the abusive actions of the Critic, often without addressing their own shortcomings or the legitimacy of some of the Critic’s complaints. They often overlook their own passive-aggressive behavior, avoidance of conflict, and reluctance to challenge the Critic’s authority, all of which feed into the vicious cycle. By focusing on the faults of the Critics, Victims deflect attention from themselves, thus reducing the personal vulnerability involved in sharing their own anxieties, insecurities, and shame.

Beyond Complaining and into the Realm of Relating

We can escape the Victim mindset by sharing how we are feeling and doing, rather than just complaining about external events. This involves focusing on what is, rather than on what should or shouldn’t be. Being open about our fears and insecurities requires both humility and trust. Admitting our limitations may be humbling, but it helps to minimize the humiliation that comes with others recognizing our shortcomings before we acknowledge them. Opening up requires trust both in our confidantes and in ourselves: trust in the other to respect our feelings and honor our privacy, and trust in ourselves to cope effectively with those occasions when our confidantes lets us down in one way or another. While complaining about our situation may bring Enablers to our rescue, expressing our feelings is more likely to elicit compassion from our listeners. In the long run, being cared for is likely to be more beneficial than being taken care of. A further feature of open sharing is the experience of gratitude for the other’s compassionate presence. Not only can gratitude help us not to wallow in the role of Victim, but it can also encourage our confidantes to feel appreciated for their compassion. This, in turn, could help to discourage the confidantes from assuming an Enabler role that is detrimental to our growth. All of these developments help to shift the emphasis of the relationship from using the other for our own needs to that of relating to one another.

Emotional Intimacy Is a Two-way Street

Note that relating to one another is a two-way street. This requires the willingness to listen to others as they recount their struggles, as well as sharing our own. This in itself can be quite helpful for stepping out of the Victim role, as we can come to realize that our own struggle with oppression is not all that special. Furthermore, we may be inspired by hearing others’ accounts of how they overcame instances of abuse, neglect, or unfair treatment. Another benefit is in feeling good about ourselves for our compassionate listening to another’s plight. Yet perhaps the most valuable impact is the development of emotional intimacy, as both we and others allow ourselves to be vulnerable in sharing our personal struggles, which allows for compassion and gratitude for one another.

When Is a Conflict Not a Real Conflict?

Personal Conflict

Couples at times argue over only apparent differences, when they, in fact, agree in their basic concerns. Imagine, if you will, a couple arguing over whether the glass is half-full or half-empty. Or recall the beer commercials involving a debate over whether the beer “tastes great” or is “less filling.” Though actually a marketing ploy, this illustrates how you can have a disagreement between two mutually compatible positions.” Edward Albee took this theme of apparent conflict to the absurd in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. Here, the spouses George and Martha clashing in heated arguments over the son whom they never had.

Misunderstandings

What we often are dealing with in such situations is not an actual conflict, but rather a misunderstanding. This misunderstanding can arise either from a miscommunication or from a misinterpretation, or from a combination of the two. In the case of miscommunication, what one says is not what one actually means. With misinterpretation, what one hears is not what was actually said. Of course, both processes may occur together, adding to the chaos. Wiley Miller has dramatized such misunderstandings in his comic strip, Non Sequitur. In the series entitled “Why We’ll Never Understand Each Other.” Here, he illustrated misinterpretation by contrasting what one spouse heard with what the other actually said.  In still other strips, he addressed miscommunication, showing the discrepancy between what one says and what one means.

Whatever the case, miscommunication or misinterpretation, the solution can be quite simply a matter of inquiry and clarification. The listener might inquire with a paraphrase, such as, “If I understand you, you saying that . . ?”  In turn, the speaker might respond, “No, what I really mean to say is . . .” As simple as this solution is, it is amazing how infrequently it gets used. Instead, partners often operate on the misguided assumption that they know exactly what each other means.

Style versus Content

Frequently, the impasse is not over the content of the communication, but over its style. Often, the manner of expression leaves the other feeling disregarded, dismissed, disrespected, judged, blamed, belittled, etc. When this pattern of communication goes back and forth, it becomes a vicious cycle. as I described in Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships 2.0. These interactions convey a deeper erosion of the bond that holds the partners together. This is a serious concern that requires attention, even when there is no “actual” conflict over a significant issue. Such is an example of style trumping substance.

The Broader Implication

We should note that this discussion also applies to those situations when the couple has honest differences of opinions. Then, the partners may need to resolve communication styles before they are ready to address the “actual” conflict.

Interpersonal Conflict Strategies

Personal Conflict, , , , , , , ,

An earlier post, Dealing with Conflict in Relationships: The Art of Assertiveness, affirmed that interpersonal conflict is a normal and healthy aspect of relationships. It proposed conflict a means through which we maintain a dynamic balance between our own self-interest and the well-being of our partners. While it noted self-expression, active listening, and negotiation as three basic components of conflict resolution, it did not identify particular strategies that one might adopt in this process. The below table outlines eight such strategies. This list is not etched in stone, such that others may come up with a different number of strategies, and different strategies entirely.  Much is simply a matter of personal preference as to how to cut up the pie, with the primary criterion of the “truth” of these concepts lying in their usefulness.

[table id=7/]

Note that the table lists both advantages and drawbacks for each of the eight interpersonal conflict strategies. That does not mean that they are equally helpful, as certain ones, such as compromise and collaboration, are typically more productive, particularly in the context of an ongoing relationship. The effectiveness of a particular conflict strategy often depends upon the particular situation in which it is used: sometimes you need a saw, and other times you need a hammer.

Our Social Roles – Which Are Yours?

Interpersonal Roles, Paradoxes in Everyday Life, Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships, , , , , , , , , ,

How often do you stop to reflect on your place in the world and the social roles you play out on this stage? If you are like most, it’s not that often. You may follow the adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” This approach is in direct contrast to the Socratic dictum that “the unexamined life is not worth living” and his admonition to “know thyself.” Here, we find an example of contradictory advice, which I propose is a direct result of our living in a paradoxical world. As we discover in other writings on this site, we don’t need to be paralyzed by such situations. Instead, we can adopt a middle ground between the two opposing positions, in exploring not only how these social roles limit us, but also considering other available options.

Getting to Know Thyself

In  exploring our usual styles of relating to others, it is important to remember that we are not the roles that we assume, even if we play them rather frequently or habitually. We may find that we alternate between various roles according to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Still, we do “volunteer” for certain roles because they fulfill our particular wants and needs. Many of these roles evolve out of how we resolve various paradoxes of life for ourselves (e.g., order vs. freedom, belonging vs. individuality, security vs. excitement, being vs. becoming, and using vs. relating). It is quite unlikely that we have come to a deliberate choice out of our contemplating these paradoxes and the meaning of life. Rather, the resolution is usually implied in how we interact with others. And even if these roles were a product of conscious choice, we have likely practiced them sufficiently that they have become a matter of habit, with our no longer being aware of them. They then operate as implicit assumptions, acting behind the scenes to guide our interactions with others. As long as these assumptions go unstated, they are quite difficult to challenge. Only when we identify them, do we consider that there are other options. Tagging these “ways of being in the world” with labels gives us the focus to assess their usefulness and to consider other available options.

Social Roles – How to Define Them?

There is nothing magical or absolute about the labels and definitions for these social roles. It is more a matter of creating them, rather than discovering them. Just as we can cut a cake into different numbers of pieces of different shapes and sizes, so too can we construct the various roles from the array of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that we experience and express. Even with this arbitrary quality, these labels provide useful “handles” for understanding ourselves. You will find that various therapists, counselors, life coaches, and self-anointed gurus differ widely in labeling and defining the common personality styles and roles. This is not haphazard. Rather, these categories are outgrowths of their perspectives on life. So, too, is it with my outlook. In particular, I make note of the differing styles we adopt and practice in wading through the “messiness” of living in a paradoxical universe. Furthermore, these roles do not occur in isolation – rather, they get expressed in our social relations. These habitual roles interact with others’ styles, often resulting in getting stuck in frustrating relationship patterns, which I have addressed as vicious cycles. Having labels and descriptions for these can help one escape from such ruts. While these labels can be a quite useful shorthand to describe common patterns, we should keep in mind that they are not things in and of themselves. Here, we want to keep in mind Alfred Korzybski’s adage, “Don’t confuse the map with the territory.”

Social Roles as Styles of Dealing with Life’s Paradoxes

In this approach, we will be defining our social roles in functional terms, according to the particular purpose toward which we are applying them. First, we define these roles according to varying tendencies for resolving life’s paradoxes: Do we seek out order and predictability, or do we reserve the freedom of keeping our options open? Do we prefer comfort and security, or do we pursue adventure and excitement? Do we live in the moment, appreciating things as they are, or do we focus on pursuing goals for improvement and fulfilling a purpose? Do we approach life and relationships in a practical sense of working together to achieve specific goals, or do we focus on relating to one another on a deeper emotional level? Do we collaborate openly with others by “laying one’s cards face up on the table,” or do we pursue our private agenda in “keeping our cards close to our vest”? Do we seek out a sense of belonging with others, or do we pursue our unique identity, “marching to the beat of a different drummer”? All of these questions tap into the paradoxes of life, for which there are no “one-size-fits-all” answers. Of course, these dualities are not forced choices between two extremes, but are two ends of a continuum, with the more adaptive approaches lying somewhere in the middle, as I discussed in my article, Muddling down a Middle Path: Wading through the Messiness of Life.

Getting Stuck in Vicious Cycle Roles

These paradoxes that shape our lives are no mere matter of philosophical debate. They get played out on the social stage on a daily basis. We find others to play out the scenes with roles that complement our own – though often not in a good way. Over time, these patterns become habitual, with little thought given to them, and even less consideration to what we can do differently. Thus, we get stuck in ruts which often bring out the worst in us, as I have discussed in my article, Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships 2.0.

drama-triangle

Other posts involve exploring specific roles that have evolved out of my study of styles of resolving paradoxes and how these styles interact in vicious cycle patterns. Two such posts, Escaping the Victim Role and Caretaker Burnout and Compassion Fatigue, discuss specific unhealthy roles in vicious cycles and provide suggestions for breaking free from them. Future posts are in the works for transcending the Oppressor and the Rebel roles. Note that the goal of such projects is not to eliminate these roles, but to modify them to  healthier versions. By offering adaptive solutions to problems and conflicts, the constructive versions allow us to venture beyond the vicious cycles and move on to other activities and social roles. The strategies and techniques specific to each social role supplement the more general tips given for escaping vicious cycle patterns, which were outlined in the Vicious Cycle article noted above.

Clusters of Related Social Roles

As I noted before, there is nothing absolute about these patterns, and thus we might look at clusters of patterns that function in much the same manner in vicious cycles. One such grouping, which I label the Oppressor cluster, encompasses the Critic, Perfectionist, Snoop, Bully, and Authoritarian roles. These represent variations on the Persecutor role identified by Steven Karpman, cited in the book, Games Alcoholics Play, by Claude Steiner. Another grouping, which I refer to as the Victim cluster, encompasses the Victim, Dependent, People Pleaser, and Martyr roles, which are versions of the Victim role in Karpman’s model. I also have identified the Rebel cluster as a variant of the Victim cluster, which encompasses the Individualist, Libertarian, Free Spirit, and Sneak social roles. I have adopted the Rescuer role in Karpman’s model as the foundation of another cluster, which also includes the Caretaker and Enabler roles. These clusters tend to complement one another in two-role and three-role vicious cycles, with Karpman’s Persecutor – Victim – Rescuer model serving as the prototype. (For a cultural and political application of this model, see my article, Vicious Cycle Roles on the Societal and Political Level.)

Vicious Cycle Roles on the Societal and Political Level

Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships, , , , , , , ,
drama-triangle

Vicious cycle patterns play out not only in personal relationships, but also on the societal and political level. Below is a table identifying key characteristics of the Drama Triangle, a common vicious cycle. This pattern was first described by Steven Karpman and cited in the book, Games Alcoholics Play, by Claude Steiner. In this pattern, the participants assume three interacting roles that produce an impasse. (While common for participants to alternate between roles, they usually gravitate toward roles suiting their values and personality styles.) In applying this model to our Congress, we can better appreciate the dynamic process behind the polarization and gridlock.

[table id= 9/]

President Bush – Lost in Cyberspace: Can You Help Find Him?

Stories and Fables, , ,

by Robert Lowell Daniel, Ph.D.

The following anecdote, inspired by a cyberspace entry, can be categorized as political satire, yet  this is a rather narrow view of its message. Rather, I propose that this offers an example of the phenomenon of “unintended consequences.” This frequently occurs when one adopts a simplistic cause-and-effect perspective on a rather complex issue, rather than appreciating the overall context, involving a  complex interplay of various factors that culminate in unforeseen outcomes.

Fiction writers are our true anarchists. Who else can reduce our esteemed leaders to mere mortals by telling blatant lies about them, while escaping accountability by confessing to their lies? As a case in point, I recall stumbling across an entry in cyberspace by a self-professed hacker who claimed to have eavesdropped on President George W. Bush’s instant messaging with his daughter. He provided supposed transcripts of their conversation, in which Jenna voiced her frustration to her father about a video war game that “totally” vexed her. In particular, she complained that one of the features of the game was that whenever you killed one of the enemy combatants, two other terrorists rose up in its place. The supposed hacker then had President Bush respond that the answer was simple—just kill them twice as fast. And of course, Jenna gushed in admiration of her father’s brilliance.

I have often regretted that I had not thought to save that particular entry, as my vague memory of it loses much in translation, leaving too much to the imagination of whoever might listen to this account. I have since tried to retrieve this particular work of fiction, to no avail. That was before the age of Twitter and YouTube, and I fear that it is forever lost in cyberspace. But then, I heard the announcement for the three-minute fiction contest on NPR, with its proposed theme of presidential stories, which motivated me to share this anecdote. I submitted it, wondering if anyone out there had the tech-savvy to find this lost jewel. My submission apparently didn’t even make it into cyberspace. (I wonder if it did not meet the standards of political correctness?) In any event, I am resubmitting it on my own website, and I have received word that it has been accepted, at least until any pending review by the NSA. So I am again asking for assistance in finding the original work, so that I might credit the author.

And can you imagine if this were a true account of an actual hacking? How funny would that be?

The Man Who Lost His Key

Stories and Fables

The following story is an adaptation of an old Middle Eastern tale, one version of which is about Nasrudin, who has been alternately characterized as a wise buffoon or a foolish sage. This setting has been changed so that it relates more to the modern world, and a new ending has also been added.

The story begins, not with the man who lost his key, but with a conscientious preacher in a small town, with his parsonage at one end of town and the church and vestry at the other end. As such, each day he would walk across town to get to work and back home again. Each day he would take the same route – six blocks down and three blocks across on the way to the vestry, and the reverse of that, three blocks down six blocks across on the way back home. On this particular night, he reversed his route, going six blocks down and three blocks across. (And if you know anything about fables, you might recognize that this portends something rather unusual occurring.) He also made his journey particularly late, such that there were no lights on in the houses and there was no moon in the sky.  Thus, it was practically pitch dark, except for the streetlamps on each corner.

As he was making his way back home, he saw a dark figure under the street lamp a block or so away. At first he thought it might be a large dog, but upon approaching, he discovered it was a man on all fours, combing his fingers through the grass under the street lamp. He slowed down as he approached, until he stopped in front of the man.

“Lose something, did you?” he greeted the man.

“Brilliant deduction” came the surly reply.

“What did you lose, if I may ask?”

“A key – if it’s any business of yours,” with this reply punctuated by his piercing glare.

Undaunted, the preacher offered, “Can I help you look for it?”

“It’s a free country – do what you like,” came the flippant response.

The preacher was perplexed, yet not discouraged, and with his being a kindly sort, he was soon down on his hands and knees crawling under the street lamp looking for the key. For some time, the two of them were searching through the grass, under the nearby shrub, along the sidewalk, and down the curb and gutter of the street, looking for the key. After a half hour with no success, the preacher suggested that they search in a more orderly fashion, making swaths to cover the area under the street lamp. The man followed suit, with a shrug of his shoulders, so as to say “whatever.” When this strategy failed to produce the key, the preacher suggested they make their swaths in the perpendicular direction, so as not to overlook any ground. The man complied with neither protest nor enthusiasm.

After considerable time without success, the preacher finally announced, “Sir, I don’t think your key is out here, or else we would’ve found it by now.”

The man responded with a casual, “I know.”

Perhaps too casual, as it aroused the preacher’s curiosity, with his asking, “And just how long have you known this?”

“Oh, since before you came, and I guess since before I even started looking.”

“What? If you knew it all this time, just why have you been looking in this particular spot?”

“Oh, that’s easy,” the man replied as he pointed up at the street lamp, “because this is where the light is.”

It is at this point where the traditional tale ends, yet we discover that there is yet more to this tale, or as Paul Harvey might have added, “Now for the rest of the story.”

The befuddled preacher, tired as he was after this long day at work, could not let go of this conundrum, and so he asked, “If you didn’t lose your key here, do you know where you lost it?”

At this point, the man’s demeanor made a dramatic shift, with his nonchalant attitude turning to anxiety and wariness. He raised his arm and pointed back over his shoulder, to the backyard of the house on the corner, as he stammered “B-b-b-back there.”

The preacher squinted into the dark, with just enough light penetrating the depths to reveal just how neglected and overgrown this backyard was. (At this point, it should perhaps be pointed out that the man lived in the house on the corner, and it was his own backyard he pointed to.)

The preacher readily offered, “Why didn’t you say so? I would’ve gladly gone back there with you to look for your key.”

At this point, the man’s eyes widened and he jumped back, as if he’d seen a ghost, and with his frightful stare at the preacher, he protested, “You gotta be out of your mind, if you think I’m going back there, in the pitch dark, with you, a perfect stranger, to look for my key. Go on home, and leave me alone.”

Here are some proposed study questions, to help tease meaning out of this frivolous tale.

What might the key symbolize? And what might it unlock?

What does it mean that the man and the preacher were searching in the light, and in the man’s front yard?

What does the man’s backyard symbolize?

What is the nature of your darkness, where you might have a key hidden away?

When Thinking Distorts Feelings

Cognitive Behaviorism, , , , , , , ,

Emotions tend to be looked upon unfavorably in a society that puts a premium on rationality and objectivity. Feelings are often seen as clouding one’s thinking, such that it is not uncommon to hear phrases like, “Let’s be rational about this,” and “You don’t need to be so emotional.”

Yet when functioning properly, our feelings are adaptive in directing our responses to various events in our daily lives. For example, love draws us toward our partners and others who are likely to be supportive of our endeavors. Anxiety urges the exercise of caution, stepping back from situations to assess the danger before engaging. It encourages a “look before you leap” attitude. Sadness often times stops us in our tracks, which enables us to take some time to grieve our losses before moving on, so that we do not carry that “extra baggage” with us. Anger encourages us to confront others who challenge our well-being, either by threatening harm or by interfering with our pursuits. Disgust repels us from situations we find noxious, whether physically or emotionally.  In all these examples, emotions play an adaptive role in living secure and rewarding lives.

Yet our feelings do not always function properly. At times, they may be so numbed or muted that we become complacent and avoid responding to situations that need our attention. At other times, our feelings may be “over the top,” too intense for us to utilize properly. That may be somewhat akin to having a jackhammer when a situation calls for a simple hammer. Often, it is not our emotions, but our thinking that is the culprit. Our attitudes shape our feelings toward others, events, and things, in terms of both quality and intensity. We have various sayings that illustrate this phenomenon, such as “seeing the glass as half empty or half full,” “making a mountain out of a molehill,” “seeing the silver lining of the dark cloud.” Such outlooks can have a dramatic impact on one’s feelings, which in turn can have a major impact on whether and how one responds to a given situation.

If we look at stress as an accumulation of various feelings in response to various challenges in living, we come to realize that the level of stress we experience from a given event is not so much determined by the event itself, as it is by our perception and interpretation of that situation. In other words, it is the meaning that we attach to the event that shapes the types and intensity of feelings we experience from it.

Another way of looking at emotions is the analogy of potential energy, such as from gravitational pull. The force of water flowing downhill can be either destructive or constructive. When there is too much water, such as with a downburst, a flash flood can bring pervasive destruction to all downstream from it. Building a dam, on the other hand, not only offers a safeguard against the destructive floodwaters, but also provides an opportunity to harness the energy in generating electricity. Following this analogy, we can work at developing healthier outlooks toward the challenging events in our lives, so that we can make adaptive use of our emotions in guiding our actions, rather than having our feelings, supercharged by maladaptive attitudes, lead us to actions (or inaction) that we later regret.

While these unhealthy attitudes can interfere with our response to events by numbing or shutting down our emotions, this exercise will explore various attitudes that wreak havoc by intensifying the feelings. Here, we will follow the format used in my previous blog, Rationalizations Used to Minimize and Deny Substance Problems, which explores a positive application of the cognitive behavioral approach in challenging various types of rationalizations. The following table presents various types of rationalizations in the first column, while proposing healthier alternative perspectives in the second column.

Challenging Unhealthy Attitudes

 Perspectives That Temper Our EmotionsPerspectives That Temper Our Emotions
The “Fairness Doctrine”: the expectation of fair treatment as an automatic or guaranteed right that we are entitled to, almost as if it were a law of natureRecognition that fairness is a social convention adopted to help us get along with one another, and that advocacy is required not only to establish one’s rights, but also to maintain them
Assumed Intent: taking things personally, such that one interprets others’ actions as intended to do us harmConsidering how others’ actions are primarily focused on serving their own needs and wants, and are not necessarily aimed at hurting us
Assigning Blame: focusing on who is at fault for a given situation, typically focusing on the pastWorking at understanding the differences and resolving the problem or conflict, with more of a focus on the present and future
The “Egocentric Imperative”: perceiving a situation from only one’s own point of view, often viewing other perspectives as wrong or inferior, if recognizing them at allThe recognition that there can be various legitimate points of view on a subject, without viewing any of them as inherently right or wrong
Conditional Assumptions: the assumption that certain relationships imply specific obligations across the board (the “fine print” in the relationship contract) (e.g., “If you really loved me, you would . . .” Or “if you were a real friend, you wouldn’t . . .”Recognizing that we all must balance being-for-others with being-for-ourselves, and that others are free to choose when to be there for us and when to be there for themselves, and that there are usually no hard-and-fast rules to determine the correct choice at any given time
Dichotomizing: using distinct categories for good vs. bad, right vs. wrong, with black and white thinking, allowing for no shades of grayRecognizing that both sides of an issue can have both positive and negative points
Catastrophizing: imagining the worst-case scenario and treating it as realityMaking provisional contingency plans for the worst, but also considering and planning for other possibilities

Identifying Your Own Unhealthy Attitudes

While this table does not present a complete list of the various perspectives which tend to intensify emotions, it covers a considerable portion of them. We can thus use this as a tool for identifying specific perspectives that intensify feelings, much as we identified various rationalizations used to justify problematic use of substances in the blog, Rationalizations Used to Minimize and Deny Substance Problems. In the first column is the statement, using one’s own words or thoughts, which tend to intensify feelings. In the second column is the type of unhealthy perspective being used in this statement. Note that if your example does not appear to fit any of the above categories, you are free to come up with your own category. In the third column, you come up with your own alternative perspective that offers a healthier and more adaptive outlook to the situation. You will note that the spaces on the table are empty. This is simply because I have not sought out the input of my “panel of experts” (i.e., clients with whom I work in individual, family, and group therapy). This is a project in the making, and I also invite readers of the blog to submit your own examples, which I will gladly plagiarize (so as to protect your anonymity, of course). If I do use your example, you should be honored, as it is plagiarism, not imitation, that is the highest form of flattery.

SPECIFIC THOUGHTS OR STATEMENTS THAT TEND TO
INTENSIFY FEELINGS		TYPE OF PERSPECTIVE
(e.g., Fairness Doctrine, Assigning Blame, etc.)		CHALLENGING PERSPECTIVE THAT TEMPERS OR MODULATES THE FEELINGS
















Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships 1.0

General and Miscellaneous, Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships, , , , , , , , , , , ,

The following is an article that I wrote about twenty years ago, yet my message is much the same now, though I have elaborated on it and integrated it with other themes, particularly the explorations of relationships as organic systems, rather than in terms of simple cause-and-effect relationships.  The Beetle Bailey comic strip by Mort Walker that I cite is from October 6, 1991, and it continues to be a timeless pattern.

THE CRITIC – VICTIM/REBEL – RESCUER CYCLE

drama-triangle

Adapted from the Persecutor-Victim-Rescuer Cycle, by Stephen Karpman, from the book, Games Alcohols Play, by Claude Steiner (1971)

VICIOUS CYCLES IN RELATIONSHIPS

AND TIPS ON HOW TO STOP SPINNING YOUR WHEELS

By Bob Daniel, Ph.D.

Tidewater Psychotherapy Services

How often have you found yourself caught up in a struggle with a spouse, friend, or other significant person, and the harder you try to resolve the problem, the worse the situation becomes?  And despite realizing this, you are compelled to keep trying the same approach, only harder?  Chances are that your partner in this struggle is experiencing a similar frustration and compulsion, though from a quite different perspective.  These features define the basic vicious cycle pattern of interaction.

 An example will illustrate this phenomenon.  In a “Beetle Bailey” comic strip a while back, General Halftrack’s wife scornfully predicts that he will stop off to have several drinks before returning home after golf.  He becomes sullen and indignant at her insinuation of his lack of self-discipline.  So how does he cope with his distress?  That’s right – he finds solace at his favorite bar.  We can further assume that Mrs. Halftrack will continue to address her loneliness by nagging him even more for his drinking and absences.  Though each spouse has a legitimate need – the wife’s wish for companionship and the husband’s desire for respect and confidence in him – each is responding in a manner that practically negates those possibilities.

 ADDICTION AND CODEPENDENCY

This pattern is one of many profiled in the current literature on addictive and codependent behavior.  Whatever the outlet – alcohol, drugs, pornography, gambling, food, compulsive shopping, etc. – the addiction offers the addict an escape from the codependent’s demands and provides an impersonal mode of tension relief.  This in turn enables the codependent partner to deflect attention away from his or her own inner pain and to focus on the partner’s addictive behavior.  The codependent then typically engages in a campaign of complaining, pleading, bribing, blaming, demanding, threatening, and withholding in order to correct and control the partner’s behavior.  As we saw in the case of the Halftracks, this only serves to perpetuate the problem.

 CRITIC – VICTIM – RESCUER TRIANGLES

The addiction-codependency pattern is only one version of the vicious cycle.  Other cycles may involve a third person, with each participant assuming a specialized role.  Such is the case with the critic-victim-rescuer cycle.  In this pattern the critic blames and punishes the victim, typically for some inadequacy or weakness.  The victim feels hurt, rejected, and fearful. Rather than confront the critic, the victim seeks solace from the rescuer, who identifies with the victim’s pain and assumes a protective posture.  The rescuer implicitly condones the victim’s retreat by interceding with the critic for patience and understanding for the victim.  A frequent implication of this message is that the critic has been cruel and insensitive.  The critic feels rejected and alienated by the victim-rescuer alliance and expresses this by blaming the rescuer for coddling the victim and by again criticizing and punishing the victim at the next instance of weakness, thus starting the cycle over.  These interactions serve to accentuate the roles of the participants:  critic as punitive outcast, victim as helpless dependent, and rescuer as self-sacrificing martyr.  These amplified roles in turn strengthen the vicious cycle.

 FAMILY TRIANGLES

Families are perhaps the prevalent setting for this triangular cycle, and families with rigidly defined roles are often the most susceptible.  In our culture the father commonly serves as disciplinarian, while the mother often provides protection and support.  Rigid adherence to these roles tends to polarize the parents into extreme positions, thereby setting up a critic-victim-rescuer cycle.  In this case the father places harsh, unrealistic demands on the child and the mother protects the child from even the normal risks required to develop competence and independence.  Another version frequently occurs in alcoholic and chaotic families, wherein one parent victimizes the other.  In this case the child attempts to fulfill the rescuer role, sacrificing his or her childhood to assume responsibility prematurely.  In severe cases of either variation, escalation to abuse and violence is possible, and imminent risk would require the intervention of authorities for protection.  Furthermore, these patterns may persist well into the offspring’s adulthood, with these well-learned roles and interactions available to be played out in other settings – including the next generation’s family.

 THE PERSISTENCE OF VICIOUS CYCLES

 Given the futility of vicious cycles, we might wonder why people stay in these downward spirals.  A basic reason is that the roles and interactions are well-learned from our family backgrounds, and we are apprehensive about trying anything new and unfamiliar.  Besides the security of the familiar, there also seems to be an innate human tendency to rework frustrating situations until we get them right.  This urge even extends to the choice of one’s spouse.  It has been observed that the overly responsible children of alcoholics often end up marrying alcoholics or similarly addicted personalities, even when they consciously try not to.  Thus, the partners tend to be well-matched in their complementary roles, which further strengthens the grip of the vicious cycle.

 Attempts to give up dysfunctional roles often pose threats to the identity upon which our self-esteem is based. Identity involves who we are not, as well as who we are.  Persons living out deeply ingrained roles often view other choices as totally alien:  “That’s just not me.”  A critic will feel comfortable expressing anger but not hurt, which is taken as a sign of weakness.  A victim will show hurt and doubt but not anger, which is seen as bad.  A rescuer will show hurt and anger for others, yet view doing so for oneself as selfish.  These definitions of self narrow the participants’ options and further lock them into their vicious cycle roles.

 FINDING THE WAY OUT

Once you recognize that you are in a vicious cycle, how can you escape it?  Actually, recognition is a major step, since stepping back to gain perspective releases you from the tunnel vision that keeps you focused on your partner’s role in the struggle.  Reflection usually shows that there is no single culprit responsible for the mess, but that each person plays a part.  This tends to counter the good vs. evil thinking that often perpetuates the struggle:  participants may blame each other and ignore their own choices, or they may attempt to relieve the distress of guilt, inadequacy, or assigned blame through some addictive or otherwise self-destructive behavior.  Gaining the perspective it takes to get yourself into the picture enables you to see the overall problem and to explore new options to resolve it.  When both partners in a vicious cycle get an overview of their dilemma, it can lead to an exciting process of mutual discovery.

 Even if only one partner were wanting to work on breaking the cycle, simply declining to participate in the vicious cycle in the usual way can help.  If Mrs. Halftrack stops complaining, the general might start assuming responsibility for his drinking, since he can no longer blame it on her nagging.  Or if he could stop drinking to relieve his distress, she might begin attending to her own loneliness.  Note that these are only possibilities, not guarantees.  You can influence others, but you cannot control them.  The paradox of influence is that it works best when you give up the illusion of control.  Thus, the most effective way out of a vicious cycle is to work on changing yourself.  Even then, it might not be enough, especially if your partner is deeply committed to his or her role.  Then, getting out of the vicious cycle may mean getting out of the relationship.

 GETTING HELP

Breaking a vicious cycle can be a truly difficult process, and support and guidance can be critical to its success.  If you are prone to vicious cycles, then your self-image will tend to be narrowly defined by your assumed role, with significant aspects of the psyche relegated to the “not me.”  Just as you require a mirror to reflect your body image, you come to see your personal self reflected in the eyes of others.  Thus, friends outside your vicious cycle can help you discover the disowned aspects of yourself that can help free you from the cycle.  Yet they may also become involved in the vicious cycle themselves, often in the rescuer role.  This usually just reinforces the narrow view of yourself defined by the vicious cycle.  It thus is important to assess their advice and support, rather than simply accepting it on blind faith.  Support groups, such as those focused around addictions and codependency, can be quite beneficial, since the members tend to be at various stages of recovery and disengagement from vicious cycles.  Psychotherapy can also be quite helpful.  While their techniques will vary according to theoretical orientation, therapists have the conceptual tools to support disengagement from vicious cycles.  Furthermore, therapists have often undergone extensive training and self-exploration to avoid getting caught up in the vicious cycles themselves in providing therapy.

 THE REWARDS:  SELF-ESTEEM AND INTIMACY

Escaping the vicious cycles offers the opportunity to expand one’s identity and to establish emotional intimacy with one’s partner.  A victim who uses her previously disowned anger to challenge her critics can become self-confident and gain the respect of others.  A rescuer who learns to advocate for herself and put her needs first can find greater satisfaction in relationships and discover her intrinsic self-worth.  A critic who admits his pain and vulnerability often finds greater acceptance from others, which helps to release him from the pressure of his own self-imposed unrealistic expectations.  Additionally, the self-defeating roles themselves can be transformed in healthier modes of relating.  A harsh critic who softens his judgmentalism can serve as an instructive mentor, guide or coach.  A rescuer who refrains from taking on others’ problems can care for others, rather than take care of them.  A victim who assumes responsibility for dealing with his problems can learn from authority figures rather than avoiding them as critics or seeking refuge through them as rescuers.  Furthermore, his expression of feelings can serve the self-disclosure required for his partners’ empathy.  When partners alternate among these various roles, then mutual support and intimacy become possible.  While breaking out of vicious cycle roles is difficult, the rewards of healthy self-esteem and enhanced intimacy are well worth the effort.

Dr. Bob Daniel is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist in private practice with Tidewater Psychotherapy Services in Virginia.

Dealing with Conflict in Relationships: The Art of Assertiveness

Personal Conflict, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Though seldom pleasant, conflict is a normal and healthy part of relationships. Even in the best of marriages partners will view some situations differently and will have competing wants and needs that cannot be met simultaneously. These are times when the partners must choose between their own self-interests, those of their partners, and the common good of the relationship. These instances present opportunities for the partners to assert their independence or to affirm their commitment to their relationship. On the one hand, we declare our individuality, a primary component of our identity, by differing with significant people in our lives on matters of consequence. On the other hand, we demonstrate our commitment and caring by deferring our own wishes for the benefit of our partners. In the long run healthy conflict resolution provides a balance which allows the partners to develop and maintain a vital, committed relationship while still expressing their individual identities.

When conflict is avoided, both individuality and relationship are jeopardized. When we forfeit our own needs, feelings, values and opinions in order to avoid disagreement, we diminish ourselves and eventually have less to offer to the relationship. If we make disproportionate concessions to our partners, then over time we become resentful over the inequality and less willing to cooperate. When both parties surrender their individualities to their mutual interests, the relationship gets reduced to only those activities and involvements they agree upon. Without the influx of varied and different interests and concerns, the relationship lacks the stimulation required to maintain its vitality. On the other hand, if neither party is willing to defer his or her own wishes for the other, then the relationship has little glue to hold it together. It should be apparent that a healthy relationship requires a balance of cooperation and individuality and of give and take from its partners for its viability. Conflict resolution is the vehicle by which we establish and maintain this balance.

Even when the partners are in general agreement over the balance of individual and mutual pursuits, the individual interpersonal conflicts are usually distressing, as they inevitably involve some combination of frustration, anger, alienation, self-doubt, internal conflict, and apprehension. Frustration simply involves not getting what you want when you want it – without this element conflict would simply be a difference of opinion with no practical consequences to those involved. When we see our partner as intentionally thwarting our wishes, this frustration often translates into anger at our partner. When conflict is with someone close, the opposition may create an uncomfortable distance and a sense of alienation from the other. If you depend on your partner’s affirmation for your sense of self-worth, conflict with your partner may also threaten your self-esteem. Interpersonal conflict also produces internal conflict in its participants: our own wishes are often countered by our concern for our partners or the fear of our partner’s disapproval, rejection, or retaliation. The time it takes to work out the internal and interpersonal conflicts causes a delay in fulfilling one’s wishes, which presents a further source of frustration and an opportunity to worry about the possible outcomes of the conflict, whether that might be our partner’s disapproval, the thwarting of our plans, or some other consequence.

Safety and Respect – Prerequisites For Conflict Resolution

With these various distresses, working out conflicts requires two fundamental conditions – safety and respect. Resolution requires free choice by both parties, which can only be achieved in an atmosphere of safety. Security involves freedom from the risk not only of physical harm, but also of violation of one’s personal rights and freedom. Threats are particularly intimidating when there has been a history of previous aggression and personal violations. Achieving a partner’s capitulation through intimidation only suppresses conflict, rather than resolves it. Though it may achieve a short-term victory in winning a conflict, it leads to the long-term deterioration of trust, caring and cooperation in the relationship.

The second prerequisite for resolving conflicts is respect – both for one’s partner and for oneself. We accord respect for both our partners and ourselves when we recognize that we both can hold legitimate opinions and positions, even though based on different values, assumptions, and individual needs. We acknowledge that none of us has exclusive access to the standards by which to judge others – even if we assume that such absolute standards exist. This allows us to accept our differences without assuming that one is right and the other wrong, one good and the other bad, one true and the other false. In respecting the other we do not attempt to redefine the other’s thoughts, feelings and values. When we disagree in our opinions, we keep an open mind, recognizing that we do not have all the answers and demonstrating a willingness to learn from our partners. Since we honor our partners’ right to free choice, we do not attempt control or manipulation. With self-respect we accord ourselves the same respect that we give to others, and we expect that same respect from others as well. Self-respect also involves the responsibility for asserting our rights.

The Plight of the “Fight or Flight” Response

While hazardous enough itself, conflict gets further complicated by our “fight or flight” response to stress – and conflict can be quite stressful. We have a biological programming to respond to emergency situations which mobilizes us either to flee dangerous situations or to combat threatening forces. While appropriate for some situations, this intense reaction is counterproductive to partners who are attempting to work out their conflicts. The fight response involves an attempt to overcome one’s adversary – when enacted in conflict it is an attempt to dominate and control the other. At the very least this reaction is incompatible with the problem-solving and compromising that conflict resolution usually requires. Our stress gets experienced as anger at our partner, whom we see as obstructing our well-being, whether willfully or through negligence. At worst, the fight response may lead to a mutual escalation of hostilities that results in physical violence. In the flight response we attempt to avoid conflict either by ignoring it or by submitting to our partner’s wishes. The predominant feelings are fear and anxiety, whether for our own security or of losing our partner’s love. Our accommodation to our partner generally entails a diminishing of the self and a covert resentment of our partner. It often encourages others to take us for granted or to take advantage of our acquiescence.

Neither fight nor flight is adaptive for conflict, for both violate the respect required to sustain a committed relationship. The aggression of the fight response dominates without respecting the rights of one’s partner, while the submission of the flight response violates self-respect. In order for conflict to be constructive, some tempering of the fight or flight responses is necessary. Assertiveness involves the active advocacy of one’s needs and wants, as does aggression, yet it also respects the rights and dignity of one’s partner. A strategic retreat may be called for if conflict gets too intense, yet this flight is only temporary, until both parties are ready to return to the bargaining table. Thus, either partner should have the right to call a time-out if the atmosphere does not feel safe. This time can be used to cool down and to sort out one’s thoughts and feelings regarding the conflict, which can be difficult to do in the middle of an argument.

Communication – The Road to Conflict Resolution

Effective communication is essential to conflict resolution. We can examine this in terms of three basic components: active listening, self-expression, and negotiation. This approach is based on the assumption that both you and your partner have positions that make sense from your respective points-of-view. Active listening not only demonstrates your respect for your partner’s position, but it also encourages your partner to do likewise with you. Self-expression involves articulating your viewpoint and expectations. Verbalization of the perspectives and expectations of both partners sets the stage for negotiation and resolution of the conflict. These three functions will alternate during the course of working out a conflict, with negotiation generally following the other two processes.

Active Listening

Active listening involves our not only hearing our partners out, but also letting our partners know that we are hearing what they have to say. This can be expressed in a number of ways. Body language can be an important signal, with eye contact, leaning forward, and occasional head nods indicating that we are paying close attention. A simple “un-huh” now and then and paraphrasing what our partners say also communicates that we are listening. Seeking clarification and asking questions can also show that we are interested and concerned about our partners’ points-of-view. These can be helpful techniques, but they are only effective when they are genuine and accompany an attitude of respect, interest, and understanding for our partners.

Attending to our partners’ feelings is also important, since it demonstrates that we are interested not only in the issue at hand, but also in our partners’ well-being. Conflicts are frequently as much about the lack of understanding, acceptance and respect in the relationship as about the particular issue at hand. Showing these attitudes through active listening may help resolve relationship concerns that lie behind a particular demand, complaint, or request. Reaffirming our concern and acceptance for our partners is especially important when we have major differences. It can be especially difficult to listen to our partners’ anger. Often the initial reaction is to get defensive or to counterattack (e.g., “but you do . . .”). These reactions interpret our partners’ anger from our own point-of-view, as a personal attack. This approach usually come across as an attempt to invalidate our partners’ feelings and often leads to an escalation of charges and countercharges. A more effective approach is to try to understand our partners’ anger from their perspectives, wherein anger is a natural reaction to feeling frustrated, thwarted, or threatened by another. Acknowledging the anger doesn’t mean that we endorse our partners’ positions – it simply indicates that we recognize that the anger makes sense from their perspective. This approach can help to diffuse our partners’ anger and thereby help to attain a more collaborative approach.

Self-Expression

Self-expression is the complement to active listening, wherein we express and clarify our positions to our partners. Here it is important not to assume our partners know our thoughts, feelings and needs. While we might escape an outright refusal of a direct request or feel self-righteously indignant over our partner’s neglect, the net result is that we are less likely to get what we want if we don’t ask. There may be several aspects of our position to state, and attention to each one can help to convey our overall positions more effectively. These basically involve how we view the problem, how it affects us, and what we want from our partners.

There Is a definite art to expressing the problem effectively, so that our partners understand our concerns and are willing to consider accommodating to them. It is particularly helpful to define the problem in specific terms. This can involve specifying our partners’ problematic behaviors or the consequences of them (e.g., “You leave your clothes throughout the house,” or “The  house is too messy.”). Addressing the problem in terms of your partner’s personality traits (e.g., “You’re a lazy slob.”) is likely to provoke defensiveness and counterattack. It also is helpful to emphasize your own needs or inconveniences in defining the problem, rather than putting too much stress on your partner’s faults or shortcomings. The latter approach is likely to come across as blaming or attacking, which usually provokes defensiveness. It is also helpful to stick to the problem at hand rather than bringing in other complaints: keep the discussion focused on the current issue, rather than digging up the past.  Though it is tempting to bring in more data to build your case, this approach usually causes the defense to build its case, rather than attending to your perspective.  While it may be tempting to try to resolve a lot of differences all at once by putting them all under one heading, this approach can make the conflict seem overwhelming and discourage dialogue. It is generally better to tackle the conflicts one battle at a time, rather than take on the war.

A second aspect to self-expression is describing how the problem affects you – an important step for letting your partner know that the problem is a significant concern for you. As with the counterpart in active listening, you give your partner the opportunity to attend to you personally, rather than simply focusing on the overt problem at hand. One important aspect in communicating feelings is owning responsibility for them. Note the difference between saying, “I feel angry when you . . ,” and “You make me so angry.” And of course, saying “See what you made me do!” refutes our responsibility for our own actions. We may hold our partners accountable for their actions, but not for how we react to them – that’s our responsibility. Furthermore, emphasizing our feelings and needs rather than our partners’ shortcomings decreases the tone of blame and lessens the chances of our partners’ defensiveness. For these reasons articles on assertiveness often recommend use of “I”-statements to present our positions in a manner that can be more easily heard.

As with listening to our partners, expression of anger can make it more difficult for our partners to listen to our perspectives on the problems. We can often improve our effectiveness by recognizing that our reactions to problems usually involve a mixture of anger and hurt. When we emphasize the anger to the exclusion of the pain, we are more likely to get defensiveness and counter-attack in response. By also disclosing our pain we are allowing our partners the opportunity to feel compassion for us. Focusing only on the pain, however, may prevent us from mobilizing sufficient anger to assert our expectations. Without a dose of anger, our complaints may come across as whining or self-pity. A healthy balance between expressions of hurt and anger can be more effective in achieving a satisfactory resolution to our conflicts. This mixture is difficult for some personality types. Staunch individualists often view expression of hurt and sadness as a weakness and therefore emphasize their anger. The so-called “co-dependents” fear alienating their partners and feel selfish and bad for expressing their anger, so they primarily show their pain and suffering. Finding a balance does not mean inventing feelings that aren’t there, but it does mean reclaiming feelings we may have disowned when we’ve heard messages such as “Big boys don’t cry” and “What makes you think you’re so special that you deserve that?” Recovering these facets of ourselves not only improves our assertiveness, but also helps to round out our personalities.

A third aspect of communication is asserting what we want from our partners. As with defining the problem, it is helpful to be specific and to request changes in behavior rather than in attitudes or traits – it is fair to ask our partners to change their actions for our benefit, but not to expect a change in personality (i.e., into someone different). Specificity of the what, when, and where helps to hold our partners accountable for the concessions they make, rather than doing it “tomorrow” or “when I have time.” Keeping requests simple and one thing at a time is more likely to produce compliance.

Negotiation and Resolution

Once both we and our partners have had the opportunity to express our viewpoints, we can work at resolving our differences and reaching a conclusion. We may be able to clarify our positions and clear up misunderstandings. We may voice disagreement with one another’s position and present our own rationales, as long as the challenges still respect each other. This involves recognizing that we both may have internally consistent and legitimate viewpoints based on different values, assumptions, or individual needs. It is important to remember that this is not a courtroom battle to determine right vs. wrong or guilt vs. innocence, but a negotiation to work out a mutually agreeable solution. While achieving agreement on the problem is optimal, it is not essential: we can reach agreement on how to handle a problem without agreeing on all aspects of it.

One element of negotiating a solution to a conflict is bargaining. This may involve indicating the consequences of our partners’ compliance or noncompliance with our requests. Offering a reward for compliance tends to work better than threatening punishment for noncompliance. It is also important to be alert to the risk of coercion, which conveys a lack of respect for our partners’ right to free choice. Bribery, blackmail, extortion, and threats are all mechanisms of control rather than free bargaining. It is at times a fine line between offering an incentive and making a threat or a bribe – and a blurry line at that. One guideline is to propose the natural consequences of their actions on us: offering what we are willing and withholding what we don’t feel like giving. Another is to make the incentive proportionate to the action: the punishment should fit the crime, and the reward fit the good deed. Other guidelines have a more strategic value: we shouldn’t offer or threaten a consequence that we are not willing to carry out, or else we erode our credibility; and we shouldn’t offer a reward that we want more than our partners or threaten a punishment that hurts us worse, or we’ll end up giving in sooner than our partners.

There are a number of possible outcomes to conflict. Problem-solving is a mode of conflict resolution in which the couple works out a solution that satisfies almost all the wants and needs of both parties. Another possibility is compromise, in which both get some of what they want, but make concessions in order to achieve it. Both these instances are the so-called “win-win” situations. A third option is a one-sided win, wherein one partner gets his or her way at the expense or inconvenience of the other – a victory that may bear some cost in terms of animosity or resentment from the partner. Even this might be an acceptable outcome, but only if there is an overall balance of give and take throughout the relationship and a basic commitment to it by both partners.

Summary

The article presents the view of conflict as a healthy aspect of relationships that serves to maintain a dynamic balance between individuality and commitment to the relationship. Assertiveness, the active advocacy of one’s own needs and wants while respecting the rights and dignity of the other, is presented as the appropriate stance for both partners in a conflict. Various guidelines have been offered for effective conflict resolution in the context of active listening, self-expression, and negotiation phases of the process. If these guidelines are followed mechanically or used to manipulate one’s partner, they will be of little help. When they are used to foster an atmosphere of mutual respect and safety, they not only facilitate conflict resolution, but also serve to deepen the relationship through enhanced emotional intimacy.

BOB DANIEL, Ph.D., is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist in private practice at Tidewater Psychotherapy Services in Virginia Beach.