This entry was posted on Sunday, September 30th, 2007 at 8:36 pm and is filed under Marital Issues. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Molding the marriage into a rule-governed system may seem unromantic and boorish. But people are misled by the myth that if there is “love,” all problems will work themselves out automatically. It just doesn’t happen that way.
A workable relationship (which is the first step toward a loving, enduring union) requires order, not chaos. If the rules and the resulting order do not come naturally-and they seldom do-they must be established through conscious effort. One cannot just go on hoping that they will grow spontaneously and satisfactorily. This principle applies to all relationships, whether between spouses, between business partners, or between nations. Part of the satisfaction and security of a workable marriage originates in the development of agreed-upon predictable behavior in basic family activities-the everyday chores, responsibilities, emotional exchanges, and exercises of taste. Accomplishing this is one of the great triumphs of a successful marriage. It is the cornerstone of survival in this age of rapid change, loosening cultural role assignments, and increased education tending toward the equalization of all people.
It is this predictable behavior that breeds trust, which is the greatest cohesive strength of a lasting, mutually nourishing marriage, as the discussion of trust in Chapter 12 makes clear. The reader must recall, however, that negative trust will develop if one repeatedly does not live up to his bargains and promises. An individual can be predictable by never being trustworthy. The kind of predictability that breeds positive trust is based on the fulfillment of one’s responsibilities, promises, and agreements.
In the establishment of order, not only who does what, but also how it is to be done must be determined. The spouses can only perform tasks within the limits of their behavioral repertoires and acquired skills. These limits must be discussed. In any particular area, either the performance level must be accepted by both, or steps, mutually agreed upon, must be taken to improve the skill. For example, if a wife cannot cook well enough to please her husband, perhaps the husband will do some of the wife’s chores while she attends cooking school. If both decide that the husband needs more education to increase his earning power, perhaps the wife will take a part-time job while he goes to school, mining areas of competence and responsibility. This myth has such a hold on people that they usually cannot shake it off. The situation breeds trouble.
When the spouses’ temperaments, abilities, and training make an established cultural prescription unnatural, husband and wife may find that they can neither change the rule (as established by society) nor follow it. They may then resort to subterfuge. Perhaps a husband goes to the PTA meeting only if his wife has a headache-and she usually develops a headache on PTA night. In this case there has been no agreement on who should stay home with the children and who should go to the meeting. Therefore, the husband may one day feel that he is being “done in,” even though he enjoys the meetings. Or, as happens more often than is realized, the wife may resent having to feel sick to get her husband to do something which she senses that he wants to do anyway. A rule-making session would eliminate discord here.
It is imperative that the spouses deliberately and mutually develop rules to guide their behavior. Omission of this procedure can destroy a marriage. Husband and wife should operate in ways which mutually assist each other-regardless of custom or tradition. Decisions must be made, for example, about who washes the dishes and when, who takes the children out on weekends, mows the lawn, goes to PTA meetings, takes care of minor repairs, and so forth. If spouses fail to make such arrangements, then every time a question of who does what comes up, it must be renegotiated, even if it has arisen many times before. The result is squandered energy-and destructive power struggles. What might have been a mutually helpful interaction turns into an argument in which each says, in effect, “I must have my way, you stupid, stubborn idiot!” Examples are common. Suppose a husband and wife have not decided on early-morning rush-period rules concerning who gets up first, who uses the bathroom first, and at what time, who fixes breakfast, who feeds the children, who sees that they get to school. If there are no rules, there will be bedlam every morning-and in most homes there is. A mother with several small children may believe it is her husband’s duty to help in the morning. However, he may feel that he should have a quiet, leisurely breakfast, reading the paper in peace, to prepare him for a day of decision making at the office.
Arrangements for situations like this should therefore be worked out and agreed upon.
Molding the marriage into a rule-governed system may seem unromantic and boorish. But people are misled by the myth that if there is “love,” all problems will work themselves out automatically. It just doesn’t happen that way.
A workable relationship (which is the first step toward a loving, enduring union) requires order, not chaos. If the rules and the resulting order do not come naturally-and they seldom do-they must be established through conscious effort. One cannot just go on hoping that they will grow spontaneously and satisfactorily. This principle applies to all relationships, whether between spouses, between business partners, or between nations. Part of the satisfaction and security of a workable marriage originates in the development of agreed-upon predictable behavior in basic family activities-the everyday chores, responsibilities, emotional exchanges, and exercises of taste. Accomplishing this is one of the great triumphs of a successful marriage. It is the cornerstone of survival in this age of rapid change, loosening cultural role assignments, and increased education tending toward the equalization of all people.
It is this predictable behavior that breeds trust, which is the greatest cohesive strength of a lasting, mutually nourishing marriage, as the discussion of trust in Chapter 12 makes clear. The reader must recall, however, that negative trust will develop if one repeatedly does not live up to his bargains and promises. An individual can be predictable by never being trustworthy. The kind of predictability that breeds positive trust is based on the fulfillment of one’s responsibilities, promises, and agreements.
In the establishment of order, not only who does what, but also how it is to be done must be determined. The spouses can only perform tasks within the limits of their behavioral repertoires and acquired skills. These limits must be discussed. In any particular area, either the performance level must be accepted by both, or steps, mutually agreed upon, must be taken to improve the skill. For example, if a wife cannot cook well enough to please her husband, perhaps the husband will do some of the wife’s chores while she attends cooking school. If both decide that the husband needs more education to increase his earning power, perhaps the wife will take a part-time job while he goes to school.
The clear assignment of authority and responsibility by the spouses does not result in a rigid relationship. Quite the contrary, it creates a flexibility which is impossible in a chaotic marriage. When behavior and performances are predictable, exceptions to the rules are possible-without suspicion or haggling.
Deciding who does what also conserves energy and time, thus leaving room for humor, good cheer, experimentation, and emotional virility. In contrast, if there is a failure to make and abide by rules, then the “business” of marriage saps the energy from the spouses and little is left for enjoyment and loving.
3 Parts to Destructive Omission
Destructive Omission I
Destructive Omission II
Destructive Omission III
