By Tom Moon, MFT–
The kinds of issues that couples bring to couple counseling do not comprise a large list. The two most common topics involve sex (such as different levels of desire; we’re both tops/bottoms; open versus monogamous) and money (income disparities, budgeting, setting spending priorities, etc.) There are also issues rooted in basic personality differences, such as introversion versus extroversion, and habits—like neat versus messy. With most of these, it’s entirely possible for couples to find some resolution or at least a way to live with their differences. But for too many couples, disagreements devolve into bitter conflict. How does this happen, and can we avoid it?
Couple researcher John Gottman found a “harsh startup” predicts a bad outcome in any conversation about 96% of the time. When the person who initiates the discussion begins with attacks, accusations or criticisms, it’s almost certain that the conversation will end on the same hostile note on which it began.
This finding aligns with one of the core ideas of Marshall Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication. Rosenberg discovered that attempts to negotiate differences break down when, instead of communicating with the purpose of clarifying their respective needs, feelings and perceptions, the parties become diverted into judging each other. They make moralistic judgments and resort to blame, insults, put-downs, labels, criticisms, hostile comparisons and diagnoses. They use coercive or manipulative language that attempts to induce fear, guilt and shame in what has now become an adversary.
Instead of proposing mutually acceptable solutions and looking for common ground, each fights to “win.” They make demands that implicitly or explicitly threaten the other person with blame or punishment if s/he fails to comply. This violent style of communication is a default position for many of us because it’s taught and modeled in our culture. Its futility is clear when it’s laid out in plain English, but when we’re in the thick of a struggle, our conditioning too often overrides our better judgment.
That’s why the first step in getting out of the self-defeating cycle is to work at developing self-empathy. That means noticing, without self-blame, the thoughts, feelings and judgments we’re having. Most importantly, it means connecting with our needs. This is crucial, because anger and conflict always point to needs that we feel aren’t being met.
All human beings share the same basic needs: we want meaningful relationships in which we’re safe, respected, treated fairly, heard and loved. Once we have enough self-empathy to know our own needs intimately, we’re more able to recognize, and be compassionate toward, the same needs in our partners. Only when we have this empathic foundation are we prepared to have productive conversations and to negotiate effectively with our partners.
Before we begin the conversation, we need to be very clear that our intention is not just to get what we want, but to foster a more meaningful relationship and mutual satisfaction. And when we listen to the partner’s responses, we need to make sure that our intention isn’t just to wait until it’s our turn to speak, but to listen with empathy, which Rosenberg describes as “emptying the mind and listening with our whole being.” The purpose of the dialogue at this point is not to score points, but instead to understand what needs each of us brings to the conversation.
The crucial pivot that makes it possible to transform interminable conflicts into satisfying cooperation is to move from communication that is moralistic and focused on winning to dialogue that is focused on identifying our needs and making requests that they be met. Only when we’re correctly focused does it become possible to make clear, concrete and respectful requests that our needs be met. We make a request for a specific action, free of demands.
Being free of demands means that we’re open to hearing “no” without going into battle to try to force the outcome we want. In Nonviolent Communication, we’re taught that if we receive a “no” to a request, we don’t give up, but try instead to empathize with what is preventing the other person from saying “yes,” before deciding how to continue. When the focus is on listening, understanding and making clear requests, we don’t always get our own way, but the chances of a successful resolution to the conflict vastly improve.
Tom Moon is a psychotherapist in San Francisco. For more information, please visit his website http://tommoon.net/
Recent Comments