This entry was posted on Friday, February 15th, 2008 at 9:04 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.
There is a place in the best of marriages for occasional bluntness or even rudeness. Occasionally, even an out-and-out fight may be in order; as long as it falls short of homicide, it will probably leave both spouses refreshed. At times we all let relationships become complacent and limited by incomplete transactions. Our garage man, for example, may take us for granted, and for a while we accept his “Sure, sure, Mr. Smith, I’ll take care of it,” but often he does not take care of it, and makes endless reasonable excuses instead. Finally, one day we blow up and say, “God damn it, Barney, get that carburetor fixed or I’ll take my business elsewhere.” As a result of this explosion he has more respect for us, we have more respect for ourselves, and the limits of the relationship have been clarified.
Similarly, in marriage there is no miraculous method for carving out a relationship without occasional struggles. One cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs, and one cannot make a marital relationship without breaking some of the other spouse’s expectations and built-in preconceptions, and forestalling his very human tendency to try for a foot when a few inches have just been offered.
In the case of Eloise and John, the issues John raises are never dealt with directly by Eloise; when a conversation ends John never knows whether or not he has scored a point, whether or not his wife has understood him.
It is important to remember that Eloise doesn’t recognize what she is doing, As far as she is concerned, she is attempting to mollify an unreasonable man and to delay his demands by placating him. Her manner suggests to John that she will do anything he desires, but somehow or other, she usually manages to change the subject under discussion, and she never fulfills her implied promise to do what he wants. By behaving inconsiderately while appearing to be considerate, thoughtful, and patient, she is slowly driving John to distraction: he never knows definitely what he can realistically expect from her.
This pattern of behavior is a tried and true one, used in diplomacy when one nation is trying to stall another on some urgent matter. Attempting to drag out an incomplete transaction, the nation will counter the other’s proposal with something like, “But do you really think that such a thing is moral?” or “Please define precisely what you mean by peace.”
The incomplete transaction is a serious form of faulty communication. The reader will recall from a previous chapter that every message has at least three aspects: the report aspect, the command aspect, and the context aspect. For two people to communicate effectively, the listener must understand all three aspects of a message correctly. If they conflict or are incongruous, understanding is impossible. The person receiving an incongruous message must ask for clarification if he is to understand and react appropriately.
In the example of Eloise and John, there is an incongruity in Eloise’s messages. The report aspect says one thing, and the command and context aspects say something else. What John has failed to do is to clarify the command aspects of her messages. When she says, “I’ll do the very best I can,” the report she is giving appears to be one of willingness. When she did not act accordingly, it becomes clear that though the report aspect conveys one message, the command aspect conveys another:
“I don’t think it’s good for you,” or “I don’t think it’s necessary,” or something of that sort. Each time John accepts the report aspect of her message without clarifying the command aspect, the problem increases.
John is just as culpable as Eloise. He says he needs more clean shirts, and Eloise states benevolently that she is saving money. The issue of money is irrelevant and tangential. John has sufficient income, and laundry bills are no problem. Yet he fails to respond to this issue because Eloise’s benevolent tone sidetracks him. Possibly the circumstances of his own rearing have made him susceptible to apparent benevolence, and his experience with Eloise had reinforced this response.
Spouses, who wish to eliminate the destructive pattern of incomplete transactions, should practice the following exercise.
If both spouses are collaborating in the effort to change this pattern, each must make a special effort to listen to the other’s statements; and when a statement is not absolutely clear, the confused spouse must query it, indicating, for example, that the meaning or the context is obscure, or that the tone of voice seems to imply something that doesn’t fit with the words.
If a spouse feels that this method is too dangerous or confusing, or that he is not up to practicing together, he can practice by himself, analyzing in writing the kinds of things the other spouse does with words and meanings that are confounding and confusing.
If a spouse finds himself the recipient of a tangential answer, like Eloise’s response to John about his shirts, he must firmly insist on the substantive outcome. For example, if Eloise states with her persuasive and benevolent pleading, “But, honey, even if you have plenty of money it’s silly to throw it away on laundry!” John must reply with something like, “Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. What I hear you saying is that you refuse to send my shirts to the laundry and would rather have me wear a dirty shirt to the office than spend another quarter. Is that what you mean?”
Eloise probably will say that this is not what she means; she is just trying to be a good wife and help John save money. If John accepts this answer, the result once again is an incomplete transaction, and the destructive effects of her apparent benevolence spread out a little further. Here John must reply with something like, “I know, Eloise, and I appreciate your point of view, but I definitely need more shirts, and I want the laundry to come to the house every week to pick them up. From my point of view, you’ll be a good wife if you arrange to have my shirts clean. Now will you or won’t you do this for me?”
If this method is followed, the incomplete transaction pattern will gradually be eliminated. The vice president of a large company reported in an article that after simple techniques of this sort for clarity of communication were introduced throughout the organization, the board of the company estimated that within several months’ efficiency rose 40 per cent.
Unfortunately, our American notions of romance, chivalry, and ladylike and gentlemanly behavior make it difficult for young couples to believe that fighting is permissible-and may even be necessary. H husbands and wives are to clarify what each other’s limits are-determining how much can be asked for in anyone time period without evidence of immediate return, and who (correctly or not) believes he is doing more of the giving-and if they are to find answers for the many other relationship questions that arise, there is no alternative to frank talk or action, even at the risk of temporarily damaging the relationship.
To put it simply, the motto of young spouses (or any two people) trying to work out a relationship should be, “If you can’t tell someone to go to hell, you can’t love him very much.” It takes courage to shake the status quo, but if the relationship isn’t worth a risk to improve it, it is bound to be forever limited and burdened by its own stagnation.
