Partners in conflict can use different expressions to describe what is happening between them: "We never talk with each other", "We never go out together", "We're like ships that pass in the night", "There is nothing between us".
Photo Credit: Pixabay
In order to respond proactively to the above complaints, it is necessary to "read between the lines" and attempt to unravel what conscious realisations and actions are being called for by the partner voicing the complaint that are being captured metaphorically: the message in the metaphor being completely about that partner and not at all about the Other. The partner making the complaint is being unconsciously protective, and not at all being plain about what he or she really needs from Self and the Other.
"We never talk with each other"
In the complaint "We never talk with each other" there is a projection onto "we", the possible hidden message here being "I don't talk with myself", and a guess for the other partner is "(s)he might be just like myself, fearful of saying what is real".
A realisation that is quite rare is that communication is entirely about getting through to yourself, and any attempts to persuade, blame or pass the buck of responsibility on to another are clear signs that you are unconsciously and protectively communicating from the outside-in rather than from the conscious inside-out. In the above couple scenario, the partner making the complaint - let us say it is a woman - is, unwittingly, putting the responsibility for communication on to a non-existent 'we', which cannot initiate any action, and thereby risk-taking is avoided - what a wonderful strategy! If the partner making the complaint were to replace the 'we' with 'I' so that the exclamation now becomes "I never talk about anything", a truer picture would begin to emerge.
The question that is abegging is: "Do you converse with yourself; do you know what you might like to talk about?" Inner conscious conversations are the solid platform that enables you to let the Other know you in terms of your relationship with yourself and with the Other. It is not anybody's business to read your mind - a not infrequent expectation - but it is your business to ensure that you know yourself and the Other knows you. Quite a challenge for any of us, but it is liberating when we wittingly embrace it. If the woman in the present example now begins to listen and respond to herself, she may feel safe enough to reveal: "I have become so conscious of how little I say about what I feel, think and wish for in my relationship with you, this being a painful but enlightening realisation for me".
What a difference consciousness makes! There is no telling how the Other, who has been equally silent, will respond. Perhaps the Other will feel touched, or be silent, frightened or aggressive. Clearly, a 'feeling touched' response will strengthen the bridge of direct and clear 'I' communication that is present - albeit tentative - and creates an opportunity for a heart-to-heart conversation.
However, it is often the case that "one swallow does not make a summer" - one open verbal expression does not make for a conscious relationship. If the woman in the example can hold herself steady, she may continue to convey something further about herself, such as: "I would like to say a lot more about what I would like to bring to my relationship with you, and understand if you require some time to consider what I am offering".
"You're married to your work"
"You're married to your work" is another frequent complaint that occurs in a couple relationship. Indeed, the addiction to work is a common phenomenon, frequent among men, and growing in frequency among women. The word 'addiction; speaks to us of story - a tale where the child's presence was confused with school performance or some other performance such as sports, music, art, caring for others.
Such an addiction is a never-ending pressure because you are only as good as your last performance. Not surprisingly, it is not the partner who is work-addicted who will first point to the protector being played out, but the spouse. But what these spouses do not recognise for themselves is that when they make the complaint "you're more married to your work than to me", they are projecting onto the partner, and, indirectly, are talking about themselves - all this, of course, at an unconscious level. If they were speaking from a place of consciousness, they would send an 'I' message that would express a need of their own, and, indeed, a compassionate understanding of the Other's work addiction. For example: "I miss having time with you and I would like more time with you and I am concerned about the amount of time you give to work and the little time you have for yourself, for me and our children".
A communication coming from a separate 'I' land, rather than a 'We' land, can open up the space between partners and allow the possibility of a real conversation about the unhappy situation: open/real talk being about the felt experiences on both sides. It becomes safer for the partner who is work-addicted to reflect on the hidden and protective meaning of the addiction, and the other partner's wellbeing is also better safeguarded through making herself known in her needs, longings, losses and hopes in the relationship.
The complaint "you're married to your work" reveals nothing about the complainant - all the focus is on the "You" - the Other, not on oneself. The query arises as to the ways in which the person complaining is married to her work - whatever the nature of that 'work' might be - which could, for example, be the impossible work of always trying to mend the lives of others.
"I can't stand the sight of him anymore"
A very sad phenomenon or outburst - let us say it is from a wife about a husband - that "I CAN'T STAND THE SIGHT OF HIM ANYMORE" is, unconsciously revealing that the wife has no sight of her own unique presence and individuality and is bringing the void within herself to the Other, in the hope that he will resolve her emptiness within. The husband who reacts to this outburst - for example, trying to defend himself, or argue, or attack back, or try to please or appease - has, of course, also no sight of himself. The repetition of earlier abandonments for both partners cuts deep, and the desperation to make the Other responsible is unconsciously meaningful, but it is always going to be an impossible task, and the intensification of the abandonments experienced in the past and in the present scream out for each partner to follow the inner path whereby they find the emotional safety to inhabit his and her own individuality.
When the partner who makes the complaint consciously embarks on coming home to Self, certainly it will no longer be a case of "I can't stand the sight of him" but there will be an emerging hope and support for him to catch sight of himself. For each partner to begin to inhabit the I-land of individuality is likely to be a long way down the road. Indeed, the longest and most exciting journey is the journey inwards!
For the unhappy complainant, the hidden issue needing to be seen is likely to be something on the lines of "if you do not have sight of yourself, then you cannot have sight of another". For the recipient of the complaint, the needed reflection is on the felt experience of being exposed to such a strong protective message from his partner. How do you find the holding of yourself; how do you stand by yourself; how do you uphold your worthiness of being seen and loved in the face of what is most likely to be a repetition of earlier experiences of invisibility and rejection? Clearly, these are major challenges for both partners to cope with the present and the past interruptions. But be assured that the resilience shown in surviving the childhood abandonments - albeit unconsciously - when emotional safety is found - will be just as powerfully active to not only survive the present interruption but to begin to thrive in the becoming present to one's Self. When each partner occupies their own individual interiority, each brings the fulness of Self to the Other and the relationship is now and 'I' to 'I' intimacy - no 'we'.
About the authors
Dr. Tony Humphreys is a clinical psychologist, author, national and international speaker. He began his career as a Clinical Psychologist and since 1990 has been working in private practice in Ireland, working with array of individuals and groups. Dr. Helen Ruddle is a Psychologist, Counsellor and Author. Presently her work primarily is with individuals in private practice along with University-level programme development and authorship of books. Their new book - Breakthrough: The Power of the Interrupted Relationship provides the reader with the tools to curate a positive relationship with themselves and any future others.
Tagged in Marriage relationships