This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 10th, 2007 at 6:33 am 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.
The fifth session is by far the most difficult and can be attempted only if both spouses feel they have accomplished the following:
- Decided that the marriage should be continued, and indicated a willingness to make a vigorous effort to develop a functional relationship.
- Practiced the rudiments of effective verbal communication.
- Become conscious of some of the nonverbal methods of communication utilized by each, bringing them into awareness and learning to identify what they mean.
- Learned what each spouse believes he has done to create discord in the marriage.
- Learned that one cannot evaluate marital interactions unilaterally.
- Learned that the developing of a quid pro quo need not be a battle, but can be satisfying.
We now approach the bargaining table-which separates the adults from the children. Here one’s capacity for maturity is put to a harsh test. Here it is possible to find out whether the spouses really wish to have a functional relationship, or whether they are only playing cruel games.
Both come to the bargaining table with paper and pencil. If possible, a mirror should be placed where they can see themselves in it. At this meeting each spouse presents his wishes, desires, and needs.
Once more they flip a coin to see who will begin.
The first speaker then describes what he would like; he does not dictate how his spouse should behave, or criticize his past behavior. Some examples follow.
“I would like to learn to be more patient with the children.”
“I would like to see myself have more time to practice the piano.”
“I wish that we could get a station wagon.”
“I wish that I had a feeling of greater importance in our marriage.”
“I wish that we could have dinner at the same time every evening.”
“I wish I were not so jealous of you whenever you go on a trip.” “I wish we had a greater income.” (Here the speaker should specify any practical suggestions for implementing the desire, if possible.)
Since these are to be important items, from six to ten should generally be sufficient to convey the individual’s principal wishes.
One of the major hazards here is that one or Beth of the spouses will tend to use the bargaining table to present what they do not want in the future instead of making simple, declarative statements of what they do want. This practice in reality is a way of condemning the other spouse and of bringing up the past.
At this stage, then, one spouse expresses his needs, wishes, and desires and the other simply listens, asking for clarification when necessary, but not arguing. As the items are mentioned, both spouses write them down.
When one spouse has finished, the other has his turn to present a list of wishes, desires, and needs.
After both spouses have spoken, they must spend about fifteen or twenty minutes studying the two lists. Then each (if possible) identifies the first desire or need of the other which he feels can be fulfilled. We are suggesting here that the spouses find at least one area for collaboration, if they can.
The extensive use of teaching machines in the last few years has confirmed the commonsense notion that success reinforces the learning process and accelerates the rate of learning. So too in “teaching” the quid pro quo we are suggesting that the spouses can learn more easily to trust each other enough to bargain if they are successful from the first. The simplest way to accomplish this is for one spouse to pick from the list of the other an item on which he can agree, or about which he at least has very little negative feeling. He will then find it easy to “aid” the other spouse in working out something in relation to his wish. The other, having had the pleasure of cooperation, will be in a mood to cooperate in return.
If the spouses (and we consider this highly unlikely) are unable to select even one area of agreement for a beginning collaborative effort, they require further discussion and training in quid pro quo formation.
For example, if they have been unsuccessful, they should quickly review the session in their own minds to see if they have employed any of the dis-affiliative techniques most common in such discussions:
First, has either spouse made the assumption that he is right and the other is wrong? If so, and if he is unable to feel differently after independently reading the material on the quid pro quo to follow, he is in need of discussions with a third party before attempting further meetings with his spouse.
Second, has either spouse attacked the other with all-encompassing criticism which leaves the impression that there is no possibility of improvement? Such statements as “You never do anything right,” or “You have always been like that,” are fatal to this effort.
Third, has either spouse employed defensive withdrawal, a destructive though ineffectual way of behaving? In defensive withdrawal, one spouse breaks off contact and leaves the other feeling abandoned and righteous, like a modem-day Joan of Arc perishing in the flames of her own indignation. The wife who becomes silent and tearful as her husband’s voice takes on a rasping, accusatory tone may feel she is trying to avoid making him even angrier, but she is, in fact, doing just the opposite. She is also indicating that she feels he is impossible, a message which does little to improve their communication.
As we have already indicated, these initial sessions will be difficult, especially since one spouse is required to sit silently while the other states how he would like to change the marriage. Hence, a failure the first go-around is not fatal to the process. The spouses must be sure they do not get carried away and continue the discussions over approximately an hour.
