Getting the Love You Want, 20th An. Ed. (15 page)

Read Getting the Love You Want, 20th An. Ed. Online

Authors: Ph.D Harville Hendrix

BOOK: Getting the Love You Want, 20th An. Ed.
7.49Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
AS WE HAVE seen, examining your criticisms of your partner turns out to be an excellent way to gather information about yourself. How can you increase your knowledge of your
partner’s
inner world? The answer is through improved channels of communication. Throughout the course of your relationship, your partner has given you thousands of hours of testimony about his or her thoughts and feelings and wishes, but you have in turn registered only a fraction of this information. In order to deepen your understanding of your partner’s subjective reality, you need to train yourself to listen and communicate more effectively.
To do this, it helps to know something about semantics, the science of describing what words mean. Even though you and your partner speak the same language, each of you dwells in an idiosyncratic world of private meanings. Growing up in different families with different life experiences has given you separate lexicons. As a trivial example, let’s explore what the simple words “Let’s play tennis” might mean in two different families. In family A, the full, unspoken definition of this phrase is: “Let’s grab any old racket that happens to be lying around, walk to the local park, and lob the ball back and forth across the net until someone wants to quit. Rules are secondary; it’s the exercise that counts.” In family B, however, “Let’s play tennis” has quite a different meaning. It means: “Let’s reserve an indoor court at the private club, get out our two-hundred-dollar rackets, and then play tough, competitive tennis until one player is clearly the winner.” Mark, raised in family A, is going to be taken aback by the aggressiveness and determination that his wife, Susan, raised in family B, brings to the game.
A less trivial example would be the associations that Mark and Susan might bring to the phrase “Let’s talk about it.”
Assume that in Susan’s family “Let’s talk about it” means “All the adults sit around the table and calmly and rationally discuss their various points of view until they come up with an agreed-upon plan of action.” In Mark’s family the same words mean “This is a topic that we will talk about briefly and then shelve until further notice.” Underlying Mark’s family’s more casual approach is the philosophy that even the most difficult problems work themselves out over time. When Susan proposes to Mark that they “talk about” the fact that their son is getting poor marks at school, and Mark says a few sentences and then switches on the TV, she feels irate. Mark, in turn, is going to be stunned when Susan storms out the door and does not return for several hours. What did he do wrong? What he did wrong was assume that he and his wife shared the same unspoken language.
BESIDES THE PROBLEM of idiosyncratic language, there are other roadblocks to communication. Perhaps the most common mechanism is denial: you simply refuse to believe what your partner has to say. A recent example comes to mind. Joseph and Amira came to one of my weekend workshops. Joseph is a forty-year-old journalist, Amira a twenty-five-year-old television actress. They are both attractive, accomplished people. On Saturday evening, about midway through the seminar, the key source of their conflict began to emerge. During a discussion period, Joseph volunteered that he desperately wanted to start a family. “I’m going to be old enough to be a grandfather before I’m a father,” he lamented. But Amira wanted to wait. Her career was just getting off the ground, and she didn’t want to take time off to have a baby until her mid-thirties. She protested that she had told Joseph before they got
married that she wasn’t interested in starting a family until much later. “I was very clear about it in my own head, and I told him over and over again. But he didn’t listen to me. I should have worn a T-shirt with big block letters:
I’m not ready to have children.
” Joseph acknowledged that Amira had indeed made her position clear to him, but he had convinced himself that she didn’t mean what she said. “I was sure that she was only kidding herself. How could acting a bit part on a soap opera be more important than being a mother?” Satisfying his urgent need to have children was so important to him that he had discounted his wife’s priorities.
We all have a number of these subterranean “hot spots” in our relationships, places where our expectations of our partners collide with reality. When our partners behave in ways that deviate from our idealized view of them, we have an arsenal of weapons to help us maintain our illusions. We can condemn them: “You are a bad (ungrateful, insensitive, boorish, stupid, spiteful, uninformed, crass, unenlightened, etc.) person for feeling that way.” We can “educate” them: “You don’t really feel that way. What you really feel is …” We can threaten them: “Unless you change your mind, I’m going to …” We can ignore them: “Uh-huh. Very interesting. As I was saying …” And we can analyze them: “The reason you have such unacceptable thoughts and feelings is that years ago your mother …” In all of these responses, we are trying to diminish our partners’ sense of self and replace it with our own, self-serving illusion. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened to our partners in childhood. In dozens of ways, their caretakers told them: “Only some of your feelings are valid. Only a portion of your behaviors are permitted.” Instead of helping our partners repair this emotional damage, we add further injury.
TO MOVE BEYOND this tragic state of affairs, we have to learn a new way of talking, which, as you will soon see, is also a new way of knowing. Working with Helen and my Imago colleagues, I gradually developed an exercise called the “Imago Dialogue.” Imago Dialogue involves three different steps—mirroring, validation, and empathy.
The Imago Dialogue plays a number of roles in the creation of a conscious partnership. First of all, it focuses your attention on the actual words your partner is saying. If you are like most people, you do not pay full attention when your partner is talking. When you should be listening, you are instead responding to the impact of what you are hearing: “My partner just said that he wants a separate vacation. What does that mean? Does he want to spend less time around me? Is he going to meet someone else?” In a sense, you are listening to yourself react. When you focus on your inner reaction instead of on the words your partner is saying, your partner senses that disconnect. Second, when you listen carefully and then ask your partner what those words mean to him or her, you discover that you do indeed live with another person, someone whose inner experience is quite different from yours. This awareness is called “differentiation,” and it is a necessary precondition for a safe, intimate relationship. While there are many similarities in nature—leaves on the same tree, for example, are very similar to one another—no two leaves are the same. Difference is a fact of nature. When you assume that your partner is identical to you, you are negating your partner’s existence. In a healthy relationship, you realize that you live with another person who is not an extension of you. Your parner is a unique individual who has an equally valid point of view. Failure to recognize each other’s separate existence is the major source of conflict between partners.
Finally, the regular use of the Imago Dialogue creates a deep emotional connection between you and your partner. This is especially true when you are in conflict. Using this structured way of talking creates emotional safety, which is necessary for a lasting connection. When you feel safe, your defenses relax. You become aware of parts of yourself that have been hidden from view since childhood, and you sense enough trust in the relationship to express them: “I really am musical.” “I am basically a peaceful person.” When you put these experiences into words, they are rewoven into the fabric of your being and you experience “becoming whole.” Ultimately, this experience extends beyond your personal boundaries and helps restore your connection to the universe. When talking together reaches this profound level, it becomes a spiritual experience. When you connect at the local level of a personal relationship, you connect at the cosmic level with the transcendent.
LET’S TAKE A closer look at the three steps of the Imago Dialogue. The first is called “Mirroring.” When one of you has something important to say, you begin by stating that thought or feeling in a short sentence beginning with “I.” For example, “I don’t enjoy cooking dinner for you when you don’t seem to appreciate all the effort involved.” Your partner restates the sentence in his or her own words and then asks if the message was received correctly: “Let me see if I got it. You find it hard to put the effort into cooking dinner every night when I don’t show my appreciation for all that you’ve done. Did I get you?” You repeat this process until your partner clearly understands what you mean to say.
Mirroring, like many of the tools we use in Imago Relationship Therapy, had its origin in my relationship with Helen.
One day, before we were married, Helen and I were engaged in an intense discussion. Although we were not angry, we were determined to get our points across. Suddenly, Helen paused the conversation and said: “Stop. We’re not listening to each other. I have an idea. Why don’t we take turns talking and listening. You can talk while I listen. Then I’ll say back to you what I heard. Then we can switch. I’ll talk and you listen.” I agreed, and we ended up having a very good conversation. In fact, we felt unusually close to each other.
I was not a stranger to the value of listening. As a therapist, I made it a practice to listen carefully to all of my clients. I also encouraged couples to listen closely to one another. But I had always viewed mirroring as a way to help them understand each other’s words and solve specific problems. Until that experience with Helen, I hadn’t realized that mirroring has a deeper healing effect: it can strengthen the feelings of connection between couples, giving it a value in and of itself.
After a few years, I added another step to the mirroring portion of the exercise. Once the receiving partner had understood what the sending partner had said, I coached the receiver to add these words: “Is there more?” This gave the sender a chance to expand on the topic. “It takes me at least an hour to cook dinner, and I do my best to make it attractive and delicious. I feel sad when you eat without comment.” The sender continues adding more information until he or she has no more to say.
In my ongoing work with couples, I have found that this “tell me more” part of the mirroring exercise is one of the keys to its success. When you ask your partner to continue talking, it sends the message that you care about your partner’s inner experience. This deepens the sense of connection between you. You benefit in another way as well, because you gain enough additional information about your partner that you can more fully comprehend his or her point of view. Meanwhile, your partner discovers that being encouraged to keep on talking can
bring up thoughts and feelings that he or she hasn’t been able to put into words before. Saying them out loud at long last helps your partner integrate them into his or her sense of self and become more whole.
Although mirroring is a relatively straightforward process, it is very different from the way that couples normally talk to each other, a phenomenon which might be called a “parallel monologue.” Breaking the old habits can require a great deal of practice. Here’s an example of the common problems that people have with mirroring (it’s also a good example of a parallel monologue). The conversation took place at an Imago Workshop when I asked a couple to volunteer to come to the front of the group and talk about a sensitive issue, just as they would at home. Greg and Sheila, a young couple who had been living together for only a few months, volunteered. Greg started the conversation.
GREG: Sheila, I’m really bothered by your smoking, and I’d like you to be more considerate when you smoke around me.
Because I had yet to introduce Sheila and Greg to the mirroring exercise, Sheila followed her natural instincts and responded with an automatic defense.
SHEILA: You knew that I smoked when you asked me to live with you. You accepted that fact in the beginning. Why are you always so critical of me? You should accept me as I am. You know that I’m trying to cut down.
Greg, operating on automatic pilot, returned her remarks with an intensified criticism. The conversation was turning into a tennis match.
GREG: I acknowledge your efforts to smoke less. But I find it interesting that, when we come here and the sign in the
dining room says “No Smoking,” you follow it. Yet I feel invaded at home with the smell of tobacco smoke all over the place.
SHEILA: Well, this is not my home. And I feel I have a right to smoke in my own home!
Sheila delivered this last message with some force, and there was a smattering of applause from the crowd. The score was love-fifteen. It was time for me to referee.
HENDRIX: OK. Let’s start this all over again and see if we can turn it into an exercise in connection, not confrontation. Greg, would you repeat your opening statement?
GREG: I’m really glad that we’re making a home together, but, with regard to your smoking, when we joined together I didn’t realize how difficult it was going to be for me.
HENDRIX: OK. Now I would like you to simplify that statement so it will be easier to understand.
GREG: Let’s see … . Your smoking bothers me. I didn’t think it would at first, but it does.
HENDRIX: Good. Now, Sheila, I want you to paraphrase Greg, trying to mirror his feelings and thoughts without criticizing him or defending yourself. Then I want you to ask Greg if you have heard him correctly.
SHEILA: I’m truly sorry that my smoking interferes—
HENDRIX: No, I’m not asking you to apologize. Just reflect back to Greg what he was saying, and show your understanding and acceptance of his feelings.
SHEILA: Could he possibly repeat himself?
GREG: Your smoking bothers me. I didn’t think it would at first, but it does.
HENDRIX: Now, try to feed that back to him with receptive warmth.
SHEILA: I think I’d rather stop smoking! (
Group laughter
.)
HENDRIX: Take a deep breath and be aware that he is experiencing
some discomfort at one of your behaviors. Rather than hearing it as a criticism of your behavior, hear it with concern for his well-being. Whether it’s justified or not, he is feeling uncomfortable, and you care about him. I know this is hard to do in front of a lot of people, and I know that this is an issue you feel strongly about.
SHEILA: What could be done—
HENDRIX: No, don’t try to solve it. You just want to paraphrase his message and the emotional content behind it, so that he knows that you understand what he is feeling.
SHEILA:
(Takes a deep breath.)
OK. I think I get it now. I understand that it really bothers you that I smoke. You didn’t realize how much it would bother you until we actually started living together. Now you are very troubled by it. Is that what you are saying?
HENDRIX: Excellent. I could hear Greg’s concern reflected in your voice. Did that check out with you, Greg? Is she hearing what you have to say?
GREG: Yes!
(I could see his facial muscles relax)
That’s just how I feel. What a relief! This is the first time she’s ever really bothered to listen to me.
As Greg’s reaction shows, there is a tremendous satisfaction in simply being heard, in knowing that your message has been received exactly as you sent it. This is a rare phenomenon in most relationships. After demonstrating this exercise for workshop groups, I send the couples back to their rooms so they can practice sending and receiving simple statements. Invariably they return to the group reporting that it was a novel, exhilarating experience. It is such an unexpected luxury to have your partner’s full attention.

Other books

Loitering With Intent by Muriel Spark
Summer Siege by Samantha Holt
Joe Victim: A Thriller by Paul Cleave
Breakout (Final Dawn) by Maloney, Darrell
The Arctic Event by Cobb, James H.