Hugh: Let’s talk about something everyone does – including people who love each other – but that lots of people think they shouldn’t be doing at all (which is one of the things that makes it hard to do well): arguing about their differences. I recently read a thought-provoking piece in The New York Times by Daphne de Marneffe, a couples therapist, who teaches newlyweds how to get closer when they disagree or see things very differently (The Secret to Happy Marriage Is Knowing How to Fight).
Ann: I read it too, and I liked it a lot! She questioned the assumption that by saying “I do” two people have made it to a “happily ever after” destination. Instead, she said, they need to look at getting married as a beginning – I would call it a moment – in a hopefully lifelong work-in-progress that two human beings – each with their own history, point of view, desires, strengths, and vulnerabilities – will create together over the years.
Hugh: And I would add that two people do that with their differences – not despite them. Because people do have all kinds of differences, don’t they? They have big differences and small ones – over money, sex, bringing up their kids, what movies to see, whose families to visit for the holidays, whether to open the windows, and a million other things… The question is how to use those differences to build the relationship rather than undermine it, to become closer rather than more distant. Often these differences can lead to a destructive conversation rather than a productive one. How can we share our differences (especially when we’re passionate about our perspective) to get closer, rather than bludgeon our partner? I think those are good questions not only for husbands and wives, by the way, but for parents and children, friends, co-workers…everybody, really. Because if you’re interacting with other people on a regular basis, chances are that the differences between you are going to come up.
Ann: Obviously – at least I hope it’s obvious – we’re not talking about differences that lead to fights that are abusive, physically or verbally. Because abuse is always destructive – of the person who’s being abused, of the person who’s doing the abusing, and of the relationship. We’re talking about engaging our differences (maybe it is a constructive form of “fighting”) in the sense that Daphne de Marneffe uses it – it’s a form of productive conversation.
Hugh: Yeah, a very particular form of conversation. It’s not easy and it doesn’t come naturally, whatever that is. It’s difficult, it takes a lot of skill – and, most importantly, it can be learned. In my work with couples and families, I find that people are often offended by the suggestion that we have to learn how to talk to the people we love most: If you love someone, they say, shouldn’t you just be able to open your mouth and tell them what’s on your mind? In some situations, sure. But there are lots of times when just speaking your mind doesn’t work out very well.
Ann: As someone who used to take pride in being the one to always tell-it-like-it-is-no-matter-what, I found that out the hard way.
Hugh: What would you say is the hardest thing to learn about how to have the kind of conversation we’re talking about here – let’s call it, at least for the moment, developmental arguing, or developmental fighting?
Ann: Putting aside “being right.” That’s not only the hardest thing, I think. It’s also the most important.
Hugh: It’s a tough one, isn’t it? I see it all the time in my therapeutic practice, not to mention in my own life. One of my groups has been working on this for a while now – two of the people in the group seem to get on each other’s nerves, and at first most of the others either took sides or just sat there hoping it would all blow over. We’ve been practicing a different kind of conversation, lately, one that’s not about who’s perspective, taste or opinion right…and who’s wrong. I think we’re getting better at it. One thing the group is discovering is that it’s not like you learn to do it once and then you’re done. It’s something you have to practice, day in and day out.
Ann: Well, let’s face it…most of us have been brought up in the “right/wrong” approach to being in the world. You have to defend your opinions, your preferences – your rightness – at all costs, and attack the other person’s wrongness: How could they be so silly, so selfish, so careless…so whatever.
Hugh: And since you’re right and they’re wrong, why even bother listening to what they have to say? Meanwhile, the other person is in the same defensive, attacking mode. Anyone who’s ever been in that kind of fight – which is to say most of us – knows what an awful, painful experience it is. Living a life in which everything gets turned into that kind of fight is practically unbearable.
Ann: It’s pretty yucky, if I may use that diagnostic term. So let’s talk about what it takes to have a developmental fight – a productive conversation — instead. What would you say is an alternative to being right?
Hugh: Being curious!
Ann: Hmmm. A young couple comes to see me because they’re fighting like cats and dogs. She wants them to take a trip this summer and he thinks they don’t have the money. She says that he’s cheap, that he doesn’t know how to have a good time, that all they do is work. He says she’s extravagant, immature, a wannabe party girl. Where does curiosity come in?
Hugh: What if one of them said something like: Wow…we see this so differently, don’t we? Well, I’m really curious. I want to understand how you’re looking at it. Maybe we won’t end up agreeing, but I’d like you to tell me, in detail, what it looks like to you. I promise to listen, without interrupting. So talk to me. And what if the first person really did listen, except for asking questions – but only to learn more about what the second person was saying. And maybe at some point the second person said something like: Well, that was weird. But I feel better having told you honestly what I’m thinking, instead of trying to prove a point. Do you want to try talking to me about how you see it? I won’t interrupt you, either.
Ann: Sounds great. But I think a lot of people would say it’s a little idealistic. In trying to help my clients to talk to each other in this way, I’m always dealing with their reluctance to give up their opinions – especially when it comes to things they feel strongly about.
Hugh: Well, the beauty of this kind of conversation is that no one has to give up their opinions! They just have to give up insisting that their opinions are RIGHT. That’s an important distinction.
Look at it this way: I like coffee ice cream more than any other flavor. I always get it if I have a choice. But I don’t need to say I’m right to like it. I don’t need to believe it’s better than vanilla or chocolate. And I don’t need to think that everyone else should like it best. There’s nothing wrong with having strong opinions! Hold on to them! Just don’t insist that you’re right – and that the other person is wrong. Don’t require other people to be carbon copies of you in their opinions, their preferences, their tastes. It’s a wide world out there, with all kinds of people in it – including the ones you love, the ones you live with, the ones you work with. Instead of making assumptions, ask them what they think. Get to know them! I guarantee that you’ll discover it’s a lot more interesting than talking to yourself.
Ann: What if we all practiced talking to each other that way? How refreshing!