This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007 at 10:42 pm and is filed under Communication. 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.
At the next weekly meeting, the questions and answers of the previous session are discussed. Whenever an answer has been “Yes,” the data supporting it is now presented. For example, if spouse A answered “Yes” when he asked the first question (”During the last few months, have I ever said, ‘If only you would do so and so, our marriage would be much better’?”), he now gives as many examples of his making this remark as he can recall. For instance, Mary may say, “Yes, I said that if you, John, would be home the same time every evening, I wouldn’t be so nervous about meals. I’d be more cheerful at dinner, and we’d have much happier evenings.” Then she goes on to mention other statements of this sort which she has made. When she is through, spouse B John, in this instance-lists further examples which he may remember but which spouse A forgot. Both spouses speak as dispassionately as possible, making statements of fact, without elaboration. The spouses do not discuss whether or not the remarks now recollected were justified. They do not discuss the effects of the statements. They simply list as many as possible. After A has gone through the list of questions and given examples, and B has supplied more examples, B takes his turn and goes through the same list, with A adding further illustrations. Even if the one spouse supplies examples which the other thinks are exaggerated or perhaps totally unfounded, there is to be no disagreement or arguing.
Once again, a mirror in the room is desirable, for the effect upon the spouses of watching themselves as they speak is enormous. The inclination to become angry or defensive during the dialogue is strong. If the spouses watch themselves in the mirror, they can see when they begin to look angry or grimace or make gestures of annoyance and are then able to control themselves. Even if the effort at control is not completely successful, just the fact that they have observed the development of anger in themselves, is a large step toward the establishment of a quid pro quo.
Most spouses can get through this dialogue in one session lasting about an hour and a half.
The participants will notice that the exercise has involved statements of facts as seen by each spouse. Nothing is argued about, defended, or fought over. This avoidance of argument is important to the process because neither spouse can eliminate the ideas or behavioral patterns of the other by arguing, defending, or fighting. Up until now the exercises have been intended only to get each spouse acquainted with the nature of the other’s thinking. Attempts to play district attorney or instructor must be avoided at all cost. The spouses must approach this undertaking as equals, with neither feeling superior in any way to the other. They must remember that if things have gone wrong, both are equally to blame. There is no victim without a victimizer. There is no victimizer without a victim.
