Marriage models: one type does not fit all
Is there a single ideal model for marriage?
Consider that the Torah presents us with a variety of models in the interactions we see between the avos [patriarchs] and the immahos [matriarchs]. Rivka [Rebecca] does not relate to Yitzchak [Issac] in the same way as Sarah relates to Avraham, and the conversations between Rachel and Yaakov [Jacob] follow a third, distinctive relationship pattern. While you may prefer the model of, say, Avraham and Sarah for your own marriage, that does not mean that the other models would not work for couples with different character traits.
Dr. Gottman is well-known for his ability to predict with 95% accuracy whether the couple is fated to divorce or remain married to each other after observing them for as little as 5 minutes. This feat is not a parlor trick but a combination of accurate readings of facial expressions and body language combined with years of research into what triggers the failure or success of a marriage. What we feel about another person is actually clearly conveyed in our interaction with that person, particularly in an emotional discussion.
He identifies "three different styles of problem solving into which healthy marriages tend to settle." At first blush, we would think that the "validating marriage" in which "couples compromise often and calmly work out their problems to mutual satisfaction as they arise" is the ideal paradigm. One can recall Avraham asking Sarah to say she is her sister, and Sarah telling Avraham to marry Hagar and later to send her and her son away. They speak to each other directly and agree on what to do. But there are other approaches that can work for the couples involved, too. "In a conflict-avoiding marriage couples agree to disagree, rarely confronting their differences head-on." Think of how Rivka never confronts Yitzchak about their divergent views on their sons. The third model is evocative of the eruption Rachel and Yaakov when she complains to him of her childlessness: "in avolatile marriage conflicts erupt often, resulting in passionate disputes" (28).
Does compatibility assure a good marriage? While having compatible views – shared interests, values, life goals, etc. – can limit the number of conflicts the couple may run into, Dr. Gottman asserts that compatibility is not the key to success:
"My research shows the much more important than having compatible views is how couples work out their differences. In fact, occasional" clashes, particularly during the couple’s initial phase appears to improve the wellbeing of "the union in the long run" (24-25). He realizes that his view runs counter to many people’s assumption. "Many couples tend to equate a low level of conflict with happiness and believe the claim ‘we never fight’ is a sign of marital health. But I believe we grow in our relationships by reconciling our differences." Anyone who dreams of a conflict free marriage is bound to be disappointed, for differences are bound to crop up "in any relationship." (28).
The magic formula: a ratio of positivity
The absence of negativity alone is not sufficient to keep up the marriage. There must be a positive presence. In fact, Dr. Gottman has come up with what he calls the "magic ratio" of 5 to 1 in enduring marriages. "In other words, as long as there is five times as much positive feeling and interaction between husband and wife as there is negative, we found the marriage was likely to be stable"(57). So if you have set up a "low-key avoidant" type of relationship, your "positivity" requirements are not very high with less negativity to counterbalance On the other hand, couples "in the passionate, high volatility matches" need to express far more positivity in order to counteract "all the negativity in the air" (58).
Does anger have any place in the relationship of a couple who aspire to shalom bayis?
Dr. Gottman explains what he discovered through his research, "When I started the research I assumed, like most researchers and clinician, that anger was destructive if there was ‘too much’ of it. But when I looked at what predicted divorce or separation, I found that anger only has negative effects in marriage if it is expressed along with criticism or contempt, or if it is defensive" (58). In fact, verbalizing "anger and disagreement" can prove more beneficial than stifling it, for it allows for the opportunity to work through the problem, which can actually reinforce the relationship (73).
Why does criticism almost always prove counterproductive?
"One of the great paradoxes in therapy is that people don’t change unless they feel accepted as they are." So you cannot effect change in your spouse unless s/he is secure in your acceptance. To that end, you must communicate that you "value and respect" your spouse." But it only works if it is genuine. It has to be real – and it can’t just be empty words that are said to get an effect" (184). Criticism is more often directed by women at their husbands than the other way around, hence the stereotype of the demanding wife and the withdrawing husband. What happens is that as they find their husbands to still not live up to their demands, wives intensity their criticism. Their husbands respond, not by changing their behavior for the better, but by further withdrawal.
What's wrong with gong on the defensive?
The defensive reaction is focused on freeing oneself of the blame and so neglects to attend to the feelings the other is attempting to express. "By mentally freeing yourself of any responsibility for the conflict, you don’t have to do any work to save your marriage. But that’s exactly the problem with this way of thinking. . .. . as long as you excuse yourself from repairing the relationship, your marital problems are unlikely to improve" (106-107). You have to get beyond that impasse of thinking yourself in the right if you are to work on being happy together. "The first step toward breaking out of defensiveness is to no longer see your partner’s words as an attack but as information that is being strongly expressed” (92). The goal is not to show the partner to be in the wrong but to appreciate his/her point of view and offer empathy. Understanding and empathizing with your spouse can bring you closer together, while defensiveness maintains your differences.
Would it be better to just remain silent in the face of your partner’s complaints? This non-reaction, called stonewalling, is actually the reaction that is likely to be chosen by husbands: "85 percent of stonewallers are men" (147). But removing oneself emotionally actually exacerbates the conflict. The controlled, cool reaction does make the situation worse, for the stonewalling stance conveys "disapproval, icy distance, and smugness" (94).
What about offering to fix the problem?
That brings us to the phenomenon that always astounds well-meaning men. When a husband offers a solution to a problem his wife complains about, why does she get upset with him? Dr. Gottman explains that the wives are seeking "validation" and so find their husbands’ "hyperrational" reaction to their feelings distancing. "Rather than acknowledge the emotional content of their wife’s words, they try to offer a practical solution to the problem being described." That doesn't work because don't want to be told what they should do but to be heard and have their feelings acknowledged. 159). Responding with empathy is not humoring someone unreasonable just to avoid an argument but crossing beyond one’s own emotional boundaries to appreciate the experience of another.
Achieving longevity in a marriage
Happily ever after does not just happen on its own accord. Shidduchim are a result of a Heavenly directive, but good marriages have to be worked on here on earth. It is not enough to marry "the right person" to assure the longevity of the relationship. Both partners must commit to accepting the other, accepting responsibility for their reactions, and sustaining the positives ratio needed to keep the marriage strong.
Comments