TIFT #118: Helping Couples Thrive

In this post, I want to suggest some principles that guide my work with couples as well as how I think about them in individual therapy. These are mostly ideas I haven’t seen in the literature, and I hope they will help to simplify as well as inform the work we do.

First, when I see couples in trouble, the immediate problem is practically always the same. I’m sure this isn’t absolutely true, but the predominance is so dramatic that it is helpful to have it in mind. Each partner is approaching the other with the misguided notion that their job is to critique and reform the other. They are so intent on fulfilling this mission, that they become blind to their own contributions to the problem. Meanwhile, the other partner, who already believes they are doing their best in the relationship, puts energy into rebutting the criticisms and mounting a vigorous defense so as not to be misunderstood and forced into some bad place.

What is a partner’s job?

I usually unleash this surprise rather early, by explaining that the job of a partner is:

“Making the other person’s life a delight, while taking care of yourself.”

It may be surprising, but it makes immediate sense. Why not? It may take the couple back to a time before the trouble began or when they first met and were intent on doing just that.

Most partners already have an idea of how to do that, but they immediately balk. That’s not fair! How could I invest in pleasing someone who doesn’t do their job? It seems all wrong because the problem is not me. I’m doing my very best, and the other one is making it impossible. That gets us to the next principle.

How couples can help each other improve

Once again, I boil this down to a very simple principle:

 No one ever learned a lesson they didn’t sign up for.

How often do we experience demonstrations of this principle? Unless we are motivated to learn, the information goes in one ear and out the other. This is certainly the case in a warring couple, where each is firmly braced and ready to reject the other’s erroneous views. At best the critic may pay lip service to owning part of the problem but they usually see themselves as doing more than their fair share.

Are there exceptions to this rule? Interestingly, I don’t think so. Let’s look at some possibilities. What if someone points out a flaw in our performance? If true, it hurts and feels shameful, especially if it takes us by surprise, but we want to do better. The feeling of shame motivates us to learn. In effect, those who are open enough to see their part in the problem will be motivated to sign up for the lesson. Those who are not ready to recognize their role will not sign up and will not learn, so the principle holds.

Another possible exception might be coercion. Does anyone learn from having a new way of thinking or behaving forced upon them? The experience of people in substance abuse rehab programs is instructive. As long as the individual is resisting the treatment, little or nothing is learned. However, rehabs are used to this because it is in the nature of addiction that clients don’t think they have a problem or need to change. Those whose denial persists do not usually succeed in recovery. For many, however, there comes a day or a particular experience when a light bulb turns on and they see the situation in a new light. It is then that they have, in essence, signed up for the lesson and the learning begins.

One more situation comes to mind where a lesson is forced, for example in a context of abuse. The Stockholm Syndrome causes the victim to adopt the abuser's attitudes towards the self. An unconscious inner part of the mind experiences identification with the aggressor in which the inner mind sees the need to adopt the abuser’s point of view. In such a case, an unhealthy lesson is absorbed, and the principle of learning lessons only when they are voluntary is upheld even though the choice to learn is nonconscious and what is learned may be low self-esteem or some other unhealthy attitude. 

That last point has some subtle implications. When hardship “happens” through no one’s agency, the lessons may be learned out of our human wish to align ourselves with reality. The mechanism may be similar to identification with the aggressor but without aggression. On the other hand, when parents use their greater power to subject children to the hardships they themselves experienced, it often doesn’t work because the young person is refusing to accept someone else’s wish to impose hardship, "for your own good."

So the principle seems to hold quite well and, if not, discussion with the client will be helpful anyway.

So how do you reform the other?

This leads to yet another principle: 

You will each do best by policing your own behavior, not the other's.

Partners are already too familiar with the wishes and disappointments of the other, so what works best is to let go of worrying about the other person’s performance and focusing on one’s own. This seems truly radical but with explanation it makes sense. When the other is clearly the problem, shouldn't that be where the effort is focused? It may take some discussion to clarify that being a good example and managing one’s own behavior, as imperfect as they are, may be the best way to influence a partner. It seems counterintuitive and definitely unjust but no other approach is more likely to motivate both partners to attend to their own patterns and responses.

The dynamic relationship and misattribution

What partners often don’t realize is that relationships are not static, but dynamic. That means the other one is reacting to what you do and is not simply displaying static, permanent characteristics. People do have their traits, but the degree to which partners influence each other is more important than is commonly assumed. It may only be when one partner changes that they have a chance to witness the effect on the other. This is the principle behind TIFT #49 about doing couple therapy unilaterally.

Misattribution is another important element. I tell partners that humankind's most inaccurate perceptions are what we think is going on in the other's heart. At the same time, those very conclusions about the other’s deep feelings seem the most real and certain. This is an aspect of transference, where beliefs and even logic are shaped by expectations. “If you really loved me, then you would certainly…” Therefore you must not love me. The faulty thinking is so powerful and the errors are entirely invisible to the one holds such a belief.

How can I “take care of myself?”

Yes, there is a bit of paradox in the first principle, that one’s job is to make the other’s life a delight while taking care of oneself. That’s just fine because it leads to exactly the kind of discussion that is helpful to both. The more each partner talks about their own challenges and inner thoughts, the more they will earn empathy from the other, leading to respect instead of criticism. These discussions lead to two more principles:

When you dance close, you will inevitably step on feet.

Stay on your side of the tennis net.

It is helpful to remind partners that there is never a perfect fit, and there will always be different needs and wishes. That is normal and OK, so attempting to squeeze each other into perfect alignment will not only fail but will create new conflicts. However, when there are differences, the answer is pretty simple. There aren’t many options. Either alternate who wins or compromise. Otherwise there will be a sense of unfairness and unhappiness and that will have lasting consequences until and unless it is resolved.

"Your side of the tennis net" is a good metaphor for illustrating how to practice the first principle of not focusing on the other’s behavior. It reinforces the idea of monitoring one’s own behavior and trusting the loved one to monitor theirs. When the other one doesn’t seem to get it, then for a while it may work to keep to one’s side of the tennis net, but eventually, taking care of oneself has to take over as the primary issue.

Just as it is unrealistic to take on the job of managing someone else's behavior, it is equally unrealistic to think that neglecting one's own needs can solve problems in a relationship. Somewhere, embodied in the unfair pattern whether it is trying to control the other or giving too much away, is wishful thinking that can only lead to more trouble.

Many of the problem patterns couples exhibit are in part caused by someone’s inner self trying to solve the problem by accepting unfairness. It might be acquiescing to controlling behavior on the part of the other or some other unfairness, but it never works as a solution. Unfairness for either partner will eventually lead to resentment and covert attempts to even the balance with unfortunate consequences.

The use of power

Taking care of oneself means expecting fairness. I am thinking of an active word to capture how to express the need for fairness. “Demanding fairness,” “standing up for fairness,” “fighting for fairness,” are all conflictual, seeing the other as an adversary. The proper, noninflammatory word is “requiring fairness.” That is the perfect "I" word, entirely on one's own side of the net.

When all else fails, the ultimate power to require fairness rests in the possibility of dissolving the partnership. There are times when that turns out to be the only workable solution. Most of the time, however, couples have chosen each other for good reasons. The most common reason for separation and divorce is avoiding the hard work  and vulnerability necessary for working things out. It is better to adopt that view as a default and look to separation only when it is clear that repair is not going to happen. 

Criteria for ending a relationship:

There is no further hope of satisfactory repair.

No need for arguing

A consequence of the above principles is that arguing isn’t necessary. Excessive heat in arguments comes from trying to change the other person and that is both unproductive and unnecessary. People change because they have signed up to learn a lesson. They won't until they are motivated. What works is articulating one’s position without pressuring the other to accept it. That is how things really get worked out, so argument is not necessary. That doesn’t mean there can't be demonstration of feelings. That’s how we communicate to the other’s inner self how strongly we feel about something. But that’s different from pressuring the other person into changing. One’s passion is a feature of one’s own side of the tennis net.

Sticking to the facts

One more way to say all of this is to suggest the benefits of sticking to the facts. It’s another way to describe “I” statements. Facts include:

• How I see things
• What I value or believe
• How I feel
• What I want or require
• What is important to me
• What I will do if… (assuming this is not an empty threat)

Opinions are not facts. They include:

• You always…
• You never…
• You are wrong…
• This is how it should be…
• I am right…

One last principle:

Trying to change the other means giving up your power.

That’s because all the other has to do is refuse to comply. That’s easy to do, and the one making demands is then neatly disempowered. Importantly, the most common cause of excessive anger is feeling disempowered. People who stay on their side of the tennis net both in their expectations and their communication don’t need to experience those excessive forms of anger. 

Following the above principles is a formula for empowering both partners while calming their anger.

Jeffery Smith MD

Photo credit,  Priscilla De Preez, Unsplash