Advice : Wedding, Marriage, Engagement, Anniversary

There are more disaster seekers in our society than most people realize. In the symmetrical, or status-struggle, type of relationship, disaster seeking is frequently employed, for it is a clever technique for proving one’s equality or superiority. For example, Mary Bicker throws a dinner party and works hard to make it a success. She may lack the cultural polish and the experience of her husband, John, in this sort of thing, but she tries her best. Her husband, the disaster seeker, begins looking around for something that has gone wrong. Everybody may be having a pretty good time, but John discovers that the meat should have been browned a little more, or perhaps the cheese sauce needs another herb, or he makes sarcastic remarks because there are no guest towels in the bathroom or they are not set out where the guests can find them, and so forth. Consciously, John thinks that he’s doing a good thing. He feels that he’s improving the quality of the party and that Mary, who comes from a lower-middle-class family, will never learn how to throw a party properly if he doesn’t show her. Moreover, he suspects that left to herself, she would be satisfied with a mediocre performance and would continue to entertain in that way.

As a result of John’s constant heckling, Mary becomes tense and makes some real mistakes. The tense and frenetic feeling that John is stimulating with his disaster seeking soon spreads to the guests.

Having created a disaster, John is satisfied. Suddenly he becomes benevolent and tender; he takes charge of the party, corrects everything, and ends up a big hero, while his wife looks like a fool. John would have been very disappointed if he had not found something wrong with Mary’s party techniques.

Another variety of disaster seeker is known as the killjoy.

Al has just been invited to New York City to deliver a lecture, and he decides to take Carol along. AI’s lecture turns out to be a tremendous success, and he receives much applause. In his exuberance, he suggests that they go out to a well-known restaurant and celebrate with a wonderful meal. Carol counters, “But AI, can we really afford it? I’d feel guilty spending fifty dollars on a fancy dinner when I know that little Madeline is crying her eyes out for a pair of skates and the dentist’s bill hasn’t been paid yet.”

AI persuades her that they have both earned this celebration and so they go to the expensive French restaurant. Al is chatting away about how the pioneering ideas he has developed were accepted by the entire profession at his lecture, when Carol breaks in with “Why in hell can’t they write these menus in English?”

AI calls the waiter and gets him to translate the menu. When he is through, Carol asks him petulantly, «Are you sure the oysters are fresh?”

She continues along this line, and by the conclusion of the meal AI is convinced that he made a terrible mistake in coming to this restaurant. He feels guilty for having spent so much money, and is no longer holding forth about his very successful lecture and his plans for the future. He retreats into his shell and stops talking. When he begins to appear definitely glum, Carol reaches over, pats his hand, and tells him how proud she is of him. Now Carol becomes genuinely merry. She has not only searched for disaster; she has found it.

Harry Swenson is a patient man-or so it seems. His blood pressure indicates he is more restrained than patient. Living with Shirley is one cause of his difficulty, for Shirley is a master of conversational finesse and timing, particularly in the art of “cross complaining.”

For example, when Harry brings up what he believes is a reasonable complaint, such as, “Dear, can’t we ever have lamb any more?” Shirley quickly replies with something like this:

“Harry, you can’t keep nagging me about the money I spend and then tell me to buy lamb at today’s prices. You are terribly inconsistent.” (Shirley knows perfectly well that Harry actually only brings up the question of spending money when she buys expensive clothes impetuously and without having budgeted for them.) If Harry begins to complain about Shirley’s arranging a bridge party on Sunday afternoon, she says something like, ‘What’s the matter, Harry? Don’t you want the girls to see how sloppy you are on weekends?”

So Harry retracts and the subject is changed.

After each partner has at last been able to select an area of agreement with the other, and to develop a means of accomplishing the desire expressed, the spouses are ready for their first full hedged quid pro quo discussion. At a time when they feel at ease and safe from interruption, they sit down together to exchange viewpoints about what each feels is necessary, to determine the extent to which these aims are compatible, and to decide what can be done to achieve them.

If through the preceding exercises they have developed clear communication and a spirit of cooperation, each should find it possible to yield on some points in return for concessions from his spouse on others, and to maintain the attitude that his purpose is not to gain more than the other, but to help make decisions which will be to the advantage of both.

The following is an example of a successful start in a quid pro quo discussion.

HUSBAND: I hate to sound like a tightwad, but I feel I must tell you that we have to cut down on our expenses at least until I get some of the new office equipment paid for.

WIFE: What particular items were you thinking of?

HUSBAND: I’ve been looking over the checkbook and I find that clothes make up a considerable item. I’m willing to forgo any new outfits. How about you?

WIFE: You know very well that I spend much more on clothes than you do. If you’re telling me to cut down, why not come out and say so?

HUSBAND: Because something occurred to me and that was that you’ve spent more on clothes lately since you lost that weight. I was very much for your losing it, too.

WIFE: That’s right, I did have to buy a number of things right after finishing the diet, but it was nice of you to remember it. How about reviewing this matter in a few months but agreeing not to buy anything in the meantime?

HUSBAND: Whew! I feel off the hook. I won’t forget to bring it up when finances get better.

Note that although the husband begins tentatively, he manages to be at the same time specific and not attacking.

Complete examples of quid pro quo discussions, both unsuccessful and successful, are to be found in upcoming resources.

The fifth session is by far the most difficult and can be attempted only if both spouses feel they have accomplished the following:

1. Decided that the marriage should be continued, and indicated a willingness to make a vigorous effort to develop a functional relationship.
2. Practiced the rudiments of effective verbal communication.
3. Become conscious of some of the nonverbal methods of communication utilized by each, bringing them into awareness and learning to identify what they mean.
4. Learned what each spouse believes he has done to create discord in the marriage.
5. Learned that one cannot evaluate marital interactions unilaterally.
6. 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.

In the third session, the spouses ask each other questions which must be answered by “Yes” or “No” and nothing more. If attempts are made to qualify or explain the answers, the value of the session is decreased. The spouse whose turn it is to lead asks two questions of the other, waiting for a reply to the first before proceeding to the second:

Do you believe that this marriage of ours can be improved? Apparently we have to do a lot of work and perhaps give up some things in order to improve the marriage. Do you think our marriage is worth the enormous effort?

When these two questions have been asked by spouse A and answered by spouse B, then the roles are reversed. B asks and A answers the same two questions.

The next step is for spouse A, speaking out loud, to ask a series of questions of himself, answering each in turn by saying “Yes” or “No.” Spouse B listens. The questions are as follows:

1. During the last few months, have I ever said, “If only you [the other spouse] would do so and so, our marriage would be much better?”
2. In the last few months have I often stated, “If you [the other spouse] had a different personality, I would be much better off and the marriage would be a much smoother one?”
3. Have I in the last few months used past history against you?

Have I brought up your past errors and ways of behaving, things I didn’t like about you in the past, in order to prove a point, or to intimidate you, or to get some degree of control over you?

[Remember, these are all to be answered by the spouse who is asking the questions.]

1. In the last few months have I generalized about some fault of the opposite sex? Have I done this either out loud or in my own thinking? [Here the speaker should try to recall whether he has indulged in the common tendency to play the game of the battle of the sexes. It is easy to forget that our biases are reinforced constantly, and are thus enlarged, unless we become aware of this danger and learn to look around and think for ourselves.]
2. In the last few months have I felt vulnerable in relation to you? [Only by avoiding a sense of vulnerability can one be open, fully trusting, and non-defensive. The speaker should try to remember if he has withheld loving behavior for fear that it would be interpreted as approval of some of the disliked behavior of his spouse.]
3. In the last few months have I used the children against you at any time?

While spouse A has been asking and answering these questions, spouse B has been sitting silently. Now the procedure is reversed. Spouse B asks and answers the same questions, while spouse A listens.

After this has been done, the same questions are used once again, only in this instance, we start off with spouse A asking the questions of spouse B. For example, spouse A will ask, “During the last few months, have I ever said, “If only you would do so and so, our marriage would be much better’?” Spouse B answers with “Yes” or “No.”

The procedure is then reversed; spouse B asks and spouse A does the answering.

Answering the questions is a sufficiently arduous task for one session. The reason for requiring a simple “Yes” or “No” is that it is important, at this time, for the spouses to avoid discussing the content of the questions. The urge to enlarge on the answers, and thus to become both defensive and aggressively destructive, is very great, and at this stage such behavior must be made impossible because one cannot truly evaluate marital interaction unilaterally: if A thinks that B is at fault, he is not considering how his own effect on B may have helped bring about that particular action.

During the next week the spouses are to think about the questions which they asked and answered, but they are not to discuss them between themselves-or with anyone else.

The second session consists essentially of one spouse’s learning to take directions from the other. One of the most common and grievous problems in the ordinary marriage is that spouses cannot accept instruction from each other. In the course of any relationship, in the course of getting family work done, it is necessary for the spouses to divide areas of work responsibility and for each to be willing to cooperate by taking instruction from the other in the other’s particular area. In actuality, however, this is rarely done. Usually, there is avoidance-”I’m doing it because I want to”-or a slight changing of the instructions so as to make them seem to have been issued by the spouse who is doing the work. The following exercise, then, is one in which one of the spouses learns to take instruction from the other.

On a morning shortly after the end of the rest period (approximately one week) the spouses again flip a coin. Then, in the course of the day, the winner plans in detail a weekend for the two of them; the children (if any) are not to accompany their parents. The other spouse is told about the plans that evening. He can make no suggestions, and during the weekend is expected to accept all of the arrangements made by his partner. The weekend is to consist of only two days and one night, for it is likely to be a difficult period for the couple. Couples frequently fail in their first try at the one-spouse-dominated weekend; the strain can be particularly great if the coin toss has resulted in a complete role reversal-as when the spouse who usually dominates becomes the follower, and the submissive spouse becomes the leader. Several attempts may be necessary before success is achieved. But when it is, the resulting relief and self-understanding will be recognized by both spouses.

One highly competitive couple achieved weekend success through humor. The husband, who had lost the toss of the coin, responded to his wife’s detailed orders throughout the weekend with a cheery “Yes, boss I” Laughter followed, and suddenly both found the pattern easy to carry out.

The next exercise will be enlivened by recollection of the weekend experience and should not take place before the following Wednesday or Thursday.

In reorganizing a marriage so that it can operate with maximum workability, establishing a quid pro quo is essential. To achieve a quid pro quo it is necessary to understand two fundamentals:

First, the spouses must learn what their total communication facilities are. As we know, a marriage is an interlocking, self-contained system. The behavior and the attitudes of one partner always stimulate some sort of reaction from the other. Because these attitudes, and the resulting actions and reactions, usually originate at the unconscious level, both spouses may be unaware of them. In bringing the quid pro quo procedure to maximum functionality, each partner must learn to recognize his own behavior and attitudes and the reactions which they stimulate in the other. He must become fully conscious of the many aspects of communication with the other, and also of how the other one will respond to each communication, be it by a word, a lifted eyebrow, a silence, or a punch in the nose. One way to get started on this is for the spouses to read the communications chapter aloud to each other, alternating on paragraphs.

Second, it must be realized that with the exception of such rare couples as the Heavenly Twins, spouses have many differences in behavior-in attitudes, in tastes, in methods of performance, and in levels of performance. Therefore, if each behaves naturally and spontaneously, scores of conflicts between the spouses are inevitable. If the wife, for example, wishes to watch a variety show on the single television set at the same time that the husband wants to tune in the boxing matches, one of the spouses will have to yield. This is a simple example, but differences of this sort may be found with respect to food, to moods, to sex; they may permeate the entire range of behavior, tastes, and attitudes of a man and wife. Marriage may be a source of many advantages and many comforts, but it does eliminate some of the spontaneous behavioral repertoire. Perhaps that is why a spouse is often referred to as “the better half.” This may well be a folk method of expressing the fact that in marriage one reduces by half the free and spontaneous ways of behaving which were available before marriage. If both spouses are rigid and insist that all of their desires be granted, the marriage cannot continue as a functional relationship. Day after day and night after night each of them will seek to exert power over the other, to gain his own way. Some of the maneuvers and ways of behaving which are instruments of this power struggle are unconscious; therefore, if the marriage is to be improved, they must be identified, as we indicated in the preceding paragraph.

In establishing a quid pro quo the spouses acknowledge that they have differences-at many levels, both conscious and unconscious-and that in order to maintain the marriage, in order to achieve the benefits of collaboration, each is willing to sacrifice a percentage of his natural and spontaneous behavior. The process of establishing a workable quid pro quo could well be called a “marital bargaining session” or “negotiations for the betterment of the marriage.” Both spouses are saying “I can’t have everything I want and you can’t have everything you want, but let’s arrange our behavior in such a manner that we each get the maximum; let’s negotiate so that each has those things which are most important to him and at the same time tries to nourish the well-being of the other to the maximum extent.” The establishment of a quid pro quo means the making of behavioral rules which are of the greatest mutual benefit. Only rules equitable to both work in marriage. It is a union in which both parties win or both lose.

Naturally, the more hate-filled the spouses, the more discordant the marriage, the more difficult it will be to start afresh with a new quid pro quo.

Getting the marital process back in balance often can be a long and arduous task. Even with professional help it may require a year or more. In some cases, however, spouses working on their own may be successful in only six to eight weeks, or perhaps a few months, provided both have a keen desire to solve their mutual problem. They may experience certain zeal, a certain zest for mutual victory, which might be lacking if they were leaning on a professional counselor.

The danger in self-therapy is that the spouses may expect a balanced marriage, a good functional quid pro quo, to appear almost instantly. It will not. They should assume that at least six or eight weekly sessions of an hour apiece will be necessary before any degree of success is apparent. If after a reasonable trial the spouses are convinced that they cannot bargain, their alternatives, as has been mentioned, are to seek outside help, to separate, or to permit one spouse to dominate entirely.

The sessions should be looked upon as an important ritual, a ritual almost as important as the marriage ceremony itself, for in many cases if these sessions are not successful, the marriage will terminate. It is helpful if the spouses pick for the first session a date coming roughly a week after they have completed this book, and mark the appointment on the calendar. The circumstances of the meeting should be as convenient as possible for both. For example, it may be necessary to spend a night in a hotel to avoid interruption by the children. Even if the meeting is conducted at home, it should be approached as something very special. One couple we knew took the attitude that they were now attempting to make a beginning in their “real and lasting marriage,” and that their earlier wedding ceremony amounted to just a legal piece of paper which didn’t count in human terms. Though they had been married for seven years and had three children (and many problems), they prepared for their quid pro quo meetings as if for a festivity, at which each wished to be at his very best. They bathed, dressed up, and in every way tried to appear as attractive as possible. At first they held their meetings at home after the children had gone to sleep. Later, they learned that they made more progress if they hired a baby-sitter, had dinner out, and conducted their discussion in a hotel room. The use of the hotel room is frequently advantageous because it is a neutral area without any personal associations; both spouses are certain there will be no distractions, and in many cases it brings back memories of courtship days. This couple also used a tape recorder so they could later listen to the sessions separately.

Married couples, in short, can do something for themselves, and if they exhibit patience and stick to certain ground rules they will not damage their marriage, but rather improve it. If quid pro quo formation is to be attempted, the procedures described below must be explicitly and conscientiously followed.

First, as has been stated, the spouses should pick a date and make a formal appointment with each other for the first meeting. They should choose a day when both can be relaxed and unhurried. If, for some reason a possibility develops that interruptions may occur, the meeting should be postponed to the following week. If there are several postponements, one or the other spouse should force agreement on a date, since one or both of them may be attempting to avoid this kind of confrontation.

The first session should be devoted to understanding the material, described at the end of the preceding chapter, on establishing communication. Readers who have previously performed these exercises will find some review sessions useful. This is a good way to start for several reasons. First, throughout the sessions to come, the highest degree of communication must be exercised. Second, learning to communicate fairly well can be done almost mechanically by following the instructions. If the exercises are performed with care, success is usually easy. We deliberately start these discussions with procedures which we are confident both spouses can accomplish. If they cannot, the reason is more apt to be unwillingness or sabotage than inability. If this is the case, the services of a therapist will probably be necessary.

Most people find the communication exercises to be fun, and are able to carry them on with considerable success, especially if they limit the use of the exercises to twice a week.

During the period required to complete these exercises, each spouse should observe the various methods of nonverbal communication employed by the other. Each should make notes specifying what behavior, attitudes, motions, grimaces, silences, and so forth are interpreted as messages and what these messages mean to the receiver. Here are some examples.

‘When Mary sleeps in pajamas instead of her silk nightgown, I know she’s annoyed. I wonder if she realizes this is how I know not to approach her sexually on certain nights.”

‘When John simply slides his eyes around at me without moving any part of his body, and says nothing, I know he disagrees with what I have said.”

‘When Mary fixes her hair in a bun on the top of her head early in the morning, I know she’s happy.”

‘When John leaves the house without shining his shoes in the morning, I know he’s in a bad mood.”

“When John has little wrinkles by the side of his eyes and tugs on the end of his ear, I know he’s about to playa practical joke.” ‘When Mary sits up very straight in the chair and stares straight at me when I’m telling her something important, I know she has something else on her mind and isn’t even listening.”

During the first week or two the spouses put down as many of these observations as possible, each listing at least six nonverbal communications, of which two or more give a happy, or positive, message. Spouses have an inclination to search out the nastier types of message, and competition as to who can obtain the most negative material should be avoided. At first, getting six nonverbal communications may appear difficult. But it is one of the most effective methods of increasing the number of objective communication channels.

When the verbal communication exercises (described earlier) have been completed, the spouses move on to the attempt to make each other aware of their nonverbal methods of communication. They flip a coin to see who goes first. Then, taking turns, they playa kind of charades. One spouse acts out a way of behaving which serves the other as a nonverbal communication and the other tries to guess what the acted-out behavior indicates. If the guessing is unsuccessful, the actor explains how he interprets this particular action, grimace, or whatever. Then the roles are reversed.

When this exercise has been completed, they move on to the next. One partner looks at his list of observations and calls out the message which he receives from one of his spouse’s ways of behaving. For example, John says, “Mary, I’m telling you something very important, but you really don’t want to hear it so you’re pretending you’re listening and you’re really not.”

The spouse responds, if he can, by acting out his nonverbal behavior for transmitting this message. In this instance, Mary sits up straight in the chair and stares at John. John then may say, good-naturedly, “Mary, that’s pretty good. But usually you sit up a little bit straighter and you thrust your head forward just a little and you don’t have that twinkle when you’re staring at me. It’s a sort of glazed look, as if you’re starting right at the end of my nose.” Then Mary tries acting her own behavior out again. H it turns out that Mary is not aware of what nonverbal method she uses to transmit some particular message, John describes it to her, and she then attempts to act it out.

Next, Mary may say, “John, it’s Monday morning. You’re in a bad mood, and the eggs which I fixed for your breakfast weren’t quite right. Will you please act out your usual behavior in this situation?”

John pretends he’s eating at a table. He frowns, looks at his wristwatch, and mutters, “There’ll be a lot of traffic this morning. I’d better leave fifteen minutes early. I don’t have time to eat everything.” He stands up and walks to the end of the room, pretends he’s opening a closet, looks down as if searching for the shoe-shining equipment, shakes his head, frowns, pretends he’s tossing on his coat and hat, and mimics himself walking out the front door without saying anything.

Mary may clap her hands and say, “You did that very well, John, but you left out one thing. You usually mutter as you open up the closet, ‘Nobody ever puts the goddamn shoe-shine gear back in the right place.’ ”

John now goes through the whole thing again, overemphasizing his scowling, perhaps caricaturing his swearing, and stamping out of the house.

This exercise can be an enormous amount of fun, and it is an easy and practical way for both spouses to become aware of their nonverbal methods of communication. The most difficult part of the exercise is the beginning-the observation and listing of the forms of nonverbal communication which are employed. At first they will be formed only after a good deal of looking, but once the spouses are caught by the spirit of this exercise, their recognition will become easier and easier.

A large movable mirror, in which each spouse can see himself as he reenacts his own nonverbal behavior, is desirable. Watching oneself in the mirror not only makes the exercise more enjoyable for almost everyone is a ham actor-but also provides an opportunity for the other spouse to coach the one who is acting. Mary may say to John, “You’re doing that very well, but, really, the comers of your mouth go down a little more when you’re annoyed at me at breakfast.” Here John will try to push the comers of his mouth down a little bit more and Mary will applaud him and say, “That’s right.” Now John is likely to respond with a burst of merriment, and he may caricature himself. Interplay of this sort helps individuals slowly to visualize their own nonverbal behavior and to begin to understand how this behavior sends powerful messages to the other spouse, and why sometimes the message received is not the one the sender believed he was transmitting.

When the spouses have completed the communication exercises they are ready for the actual quid pro quo practice sessions. The first of these should be started at the next meeting.

It is recommended that the first quid pro quo session be divided into three segments of fifteen minutes each. The spouse who speaks first is elected by Hip of a coin, after which they alternate. During the first segment, each of the spouses has his turn to state as factually as possible what characteristics he would ideally like to see in the other, to make the marriage more workable. The spouse who does not have the floor remains completely silent, making every attempt to listen to what is being said.

The second segment begins when the spouse who last was silent summarizes what he has heard from the other and inquires if his summary is approximately correct. Then he adds supplementary comments, but only about himself (for example, “It seems to me that if I were in your position I would want me to be more prompt than I have a tendency to be”). Note that the spouse who is summarizing is not allowed to introduce defensive or attacking material. When he is through, then the other spouse does the same thing. At first, the habit of introducing such harmful material will be hard to break, but if both spouses are conscious of the problem, success will come.

The summary which opens the second segment should be easy to complete quickly. During the third segment (after again Hipping a coin to see who starts) one spouse is required to spend exactly fifteen minutes (timed by the listening spouse) describing how he himself contributes destructively to the marriage and how he could change so as to improve the marital situation. If the individual cannot think of any ways in which he contributes destructively or is failing in the relationship, this fifteen-minute period must be spent in silence. It is surprisingly difficult to remain silent this long, but it is even more difficult to be so perfect in a marital relationship that one cannot think of a single fault in oneself. The fifteen minutes seldom pass silently.

If the spouses have reached this point in the practice sessions without destructiveness or mutual antagonism, they can feel they have made considerable progress and are urged not to hold any discussions of their marital problems until the next exercise which is at least one week away. If either one brings up the topic of their marriage during this recess, the other is to remind him that the book says, “Thou shalt not.”

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.

Part II

The practice of mumbo-jumbo conversation is the basis of bad manners. In homes where there are several children, bedlam is common because when a child wants something he simply shouts until he gets it. The habit of shouting develops because the parents do not listen either to each other or to the children. Following the model set by the parents, the children may run in and out of others’ conversations in track shoes.

One method of installing the principles of good communication in children can be practiced at mealtime. The parents can insist that when a family member wants something passed to him, something like the following dialogue must occur.

CHARLES: Joannie?

JOAN (turning her head): What? (This is her way of saying, “I’m listening.”)

It is important that this little routine be practiced if there are several people present. If a name is not specified, no one mows who is being addressed. If the person who is named does not turn and acknowledge the communication, the original speaker, in this case Charles doesn’t know if he has been heard. We now continue the dialogue.

CHARLES (original message): Will you pass the butter, please? (JOAN passes the butter to CHARLES; this is her acknowledgment of the original message.)

CHARLES (acknowledging the acknowledgment): Thank you, Joannie.

The second type of major breakdown in personal communications occurs when the message sent is not the message received, as was pointed out in an earlier chapter.

How do husbands and wives manage to misunderstand each other so completely and so successfully? The major reason is that people are separate one from the other, and can transmit the state of their feelings, desires, intentions, and expectations only by verbal or nonverbal communication.

It will be recalled that the significance of a message is determined not only by its literal meaning (the report aspect), but also by the accompanying gestures, facial expressions, and the like (the command aspect), and by the nature of the total situation in which the message is sent (the context aspect). Communication between intimates is especially difficult in some respects because the sender may not realize that the understanding of his message may be affected by his nonverbal behavior or by a misinterpretation of the context. The most practical method for clarification of a message is for the receiver to ask the sender to elucidate, if there is any doubt about its meaning. For example, if John comes home a little bit tired and angry and finds the house looking slovenly, he may say to Mary, “I had to call on the Hatfields, and my gracious, Louise Hatfield keeps a lovely home. It’s a joy to be in it.”

In this instance Mary may say, “John, you said that Louise Hatfield keeps a wonderful home. The message which I hear, what I think you’re trying to tell me, is that our home looks like a pigpen. Is that right?” If John says yes, that’s what his message was, and then Mary can say, “I know the house looks a mess this afternoon, and I don’t like it any more than you do, but the water pipes burst at four o’clock and I had to go after the plumber and I haven’t had time to clean up.” The ambiguity of the message is cleared up unless John feels that Mary’s response is an old ploy; in that case they must continue struggling for a resolution.

A similar exchange may occur at a party when Mary says, “Isn’t it wonderful the way Jim Power always holds his wife’s hand and sticks with her throughout the party? It sure is nice to see people so much in love.”

John can understand this message either as an expression of sincere admiration for the Powers or as a criticism of himself. He is not sure which interpretation is correct, so he says, “Are you implying that I’m neglecting you at the party, Mary? Does it bother you when I leave you and talk with the boys?”

Mary can answer “Yes” or “No,” and again, the problem can be resolved because what they are talking about has been made clear.

Suppose John says instead, “Yes, the Powers are a lovely couple.” He is choosing to take Mary’s remark literally and thus while appearing to be in polite agreement, he is actually blocking off clear communication. When spouses repeatedly encounter obstructions of this sort, they begin to despair and lapse into permanently unclear communication.

As soon as families begin to squabble, the number of messages incorrectly received increases. People who are quarreling fall into the trap of saying one thing when they mean another, or of hearing one thing when something else has been said, because they are angry, hurt, or frightened. It has often been remarked that none are as blind as those who will not see. Unfortunately, we may say as well that none are as deaf as those who will not hear.

A communication problem occurs when a message has two or more possible meanings: The “meaning” is therefore dependent upon the interpretation of the listener, which may be different from the interpretation given by the speaker.

For example, one spouse may attempt to be witty at the expense of the other, either as a way of retaliating for previously incurred injuries, real or imagined, or to make himself look good in the company of others, without regard for the partner’s feelings.

The spouse who is always making sarcastic jokes at the expense of his partner can usually be stopped if the victim says, “John, the message I get from that bit of humor of yours is as follows . . . ,” and then spells out the message. The sender will usually try to laugh, and say, “Oh, you know I was only kidding.”

‘Well, maybe you were kidding, but that’s the message I got.” “You shouldn’t be so thin-skinned.”

‘Well, darling, would you please not pull that kind of joke on me in the future? I would consider it a great favor because it embarrasses the hell out of me. Or if you really are angry with me, let’s talk about it and knock off the sarcasm. Otherwise, I won’t be able to appreciate your humor because I’ll always be watching out for digs at me.”

The argument in this case arises over the nature of the command aspect of John’s message. His spouse takes the message literally, while John insists he wanted it to be taken humorously.

A response of this sort may cause some small fights in which the sender of the “kidding” messages accuses the receiver of being thin-skinned and oversensitive or perhaps of having a persecution complex. It may result in an admission by the “teaser” that something is indeed “bugging” him or her. But the essential point is that this confrontation permits the couple to discuss their problems openly and explicitly, so they can be dealt with. The communication system has moved toward a higher degree of functionality.

Part I

There are two major ways in which communication between individuals breaks down. The absence of clear and workable communication almost always involves both parties.

The first type of breakdown is in a sense physical. The spouses speak to each other, but neither “hears” what the other says. Sometimes this failure is the result of a lifetime of “non-listening” -a practice unfortunately common in the United States. The non-listening habit can also develop between spouses after they have been fighting for several months or years. Both spouses are on the defensive, and as soon as one begins to speak, the other starts preparing to defend himself against an attack; his mind is concentrating on what the reply will be, not on what is being said.

The physical breakdown of communication is present in almost every marriage in which there is trouble. We know of one New England housewife who, on a cold January evening, got a screwdriver and removed the front door from its hinges. The cold air and the snow began blowing into the house, and her surprised husband came out bellowing, ‘What the hell have you done?”

“I asked you three times to shut the door when you come in,” said the wife.

“You never said any such thing.”

‘When you left the house at eight o’clock this morning,” said the wife, “you left the door open. I ran out and knocked on the car window and said to you, ‘Please shut the door when you leave the house; you’re freezing the place out.’ ”

The husband said angrily, “I don’t remember you saying any such thing.”

“Do you remember my coming out to the car and shouting at you?”

“Yes, but I thought you were still bitching because I didn’t eat any of the pancakes you made for breakfast.”

The wife said, “You rolled the window down while I was talking and looked me right in the eye.”

‘Well, I don’t remember you saying anything about closing the door.”

“But,” said the wife, shouting, “I told you the same thing when you came home for lunch, and I told you the same thing when you left to go back to the office, and every time you were looking right at me.”

“I don’t remember hearing you tell me about shutting the door.” Probably this husband did not hear his wife tell him to shut the door, even though the sound reached his ears. Variations of this episode occur several times a day in most unhappy families. Fortunately, this kind of breakdown is easily repaired. If both spouses agree to improve their communication, there is a small exercise which will help.

A completed communication consists of the statement made by the first speaker, the acknowledgment by the recipient of the message, showing that he has heard it, and then the acknowledgment by the original speaker that he has heard the acknowledgment. If for about two weeks a husband and wife will conscientiously make certain that every message is a completed one, even though it sounds forced and silly at the beginning, the chances are that their physical communication will improve greatly. But this exercise, with its exaggerated emphasis, must be performed with every communication, no matter how small.

For example:

MARY: My, how blue the sky is. (This is the original statement.)

JOHN (acknowledging that he has heard): Yes, it certainly is a beautiful blue.

MARY (acknowledging JOHN’S acknowledgment): I’m glad you like it too.

Spouses will make many short statements like Mary’s in the course of a day-”Gracious, this must be the coldest day of the year;” “Phew, but I’m exhausted;” “Something smells good in the kitchen;” “I had a hell of a day at the office.”

The usual response to statements of this sort is a grunt, a nod of the head, or perhaps nothing at all. IT one of the spouses tends to be a chatterbox, the other may easily get into the habit of not listening to anything, thereby only reinforcing the chattering behavior, which doesn’t require a response.

When an attempt is made to complete all messages (so that each consists of statement, acknowledgment, and second acknowledgment), the amount of “nothing” talk is soon reduced. Spouses learn not to speak unless they desire to have a completed communication. Some examples of the completed communication follow.

MARY (original statement): Please shut the door when you come in or go out. It’s damn cold outside.

JOHN (acknowledgment): I’ll try to remember, and if I forget, will you remind me again?

MARY (acknowledgment of the acknowledgment): Thank you, John. Yes, I’ll remind you if you forget.

Another example:

JOHN (original message): Something smells good in the kitchen.

MARY (acknowledgment): Yes, I have an apple pie in the oven.

JOHN (acknowledgment of the acknowledgment): Oh, good, I hope we’re having it for dinner.

Even if the messages are negative, they must be completed:

MARY (original message): John, will you bring me ten pounds of potatoes on the way home from the office?

JOHN (acknowledgment): I’d rather not. I work late today, and if I stop at the supermarket there’s a hell of a long line at half past six.

MARY (acknowledgment of the acknowledgment): Oh, all right, I guess we can hold off till I go to the store the day after tomorrow myself.

It is unnatural for most couples to complete every communication in this way, and at the beginning of the exercise the routine will frequently be forgotten. Spouses must help each other to remember. If Mary makes a statement and John grunts an answer, Mary must say, in a courteous manner, “John are you going to acknowledge?” If John has acknowledged and Mary simply nods her head, John must remind her: “Mary, are you going to acknowledge my acknowledgment?”

For spouses intending to improve their marriage, the development of a functional communications pattern is the first step to be taken. Furthermore, the exercise just described can be a great deal of fun. It can be a good game; and when it is done quietly in public, the participants frequently gain a great feeling of shared understanding, because as they look around they see that other husbands and wives are usually paying no attention to what each says to the other. Besides, this little exercise can be of enormous benefit to all of one’s human relationships. It gradually transforms the habitual “mumbo-jumbo” conversation into an I-am-thinking dialogue, which is an exciting experience.