Whatever happens between two human beings is the expression of a certain equilibrium established soon after they first meet, and subject only to periodic changes. These changes rarely alter the structure of the relationship; they are mainly modifications or shifting of methods. No incident affecting the relationship, however disturbing or pleasant, can be attributed to one side alone. Both parties continuously play into each other’s hands, regardless how active the one and how passive the other may seem. The tormentor is not guiltier than the martyr who permits the cruelty to continue, the torment to recur. Tyranny in marriage cannot be maintained without indulgent submission; courage and self-respect always stop it.
Unfortunately, since no one knows himself, the parties involved rarely recognize their own contribution and their provocative influence on each other. This interrelationship and mutual goading result in a more complicated picture when the family circle includes more persons-children or relatives. A definite equilibrium exists all the time, maintained by a secret and unconscious agreement between all members. If one person in the group fundamentally changes his position, his habits, his attitudes, or character, the change has far-reaching effects on each member of the family, strongest upon those with whom he was locked in some kind of competition, which is an equilibrium held in suspension. Allies as a rule have a firmer platform upon which they can stand together. The equilibrium between competitors and antagonists is a more delicate one, continuously challenged and restored, but continuously maintained. This is the type of equilibrium which leads to a constant change of methods and emotions, as each party responds vigorously to the slightest turn of the other. Moods of amiability and anger may alternately reach such extremes as overt acceptance or rejection.
Unfortunately, this chaotic intercourse is a prominent characteristic of our present-day family life, where mutual competition is a standard relationship between man and wife, parents and children, older and younger Siblings. Consequently, each problem or conflict disturbing the peace of the family cannot be understood “logically” from the point of view of who is right and who is wrong. We must realize the psychological meaning of the problem in regard to the persons who create it. It makes no difference whether the conflicts are minor and trivial or decisive and disastrous; we must distinguish between the logical content and the psychological meaning. And the solution must be concerned as much with the general rules of human conduct as with the psychological structures of the principals.
Logical Merit versus Psychological Significance
Here is a simple example of an incident which might occur in any family:
The husband comes home from work, fatigued, after some unpleasant experience at his office. The wife has been home all day, looking forward to the evening, planning to go with him to visit some friends. He refuses. He is too tired. She retorts, “Yes, I know. You are always too tired when I want to go out. This time I insist that you come with me.” And the quarrel is on its way. She will cry or sulk and he may give in at the end, dress up, and go out with her. But that is no solution, whether they go out or stay home. If he submits, he feels victimized and, angry as he is, can scarcely enjoy the party. If, on the other hand, he fights persistently, they probably argue all evening, and perhaps spend a sleepless night, awakening in the morning, ready for the next fight.
All the elements of a typical conflict can be recognized in this little incident. Cooperation is definitely disturbed, but it would be incorrect to blame either husband or wife and their conflicting interests. If husband and wife were on good terms, the feeling would not arise in each of them that the other has no understanding and shows no consideration. Logically, both are justified in their demands. But it makes no difference who is right or wrong. If they were friendly with each other, they could easily find an agreement according to the importance of each one’s desire. If the visit is an exceptional occasion, the husband can overcome his tiredness and perhaps even enjoy the distraction. And if his exhaustion and discouragement are considerable, the devoted wife might prefer to comfort him rather than to visit with casual friends. If the importance of the visit and the exhaustion of the husband are both extraordinary, it might be difficult to decide, but a decision which leads to a quarrel won’t lessen the pressure. Each one’s willingness to see the other’s point of view is more likely to lead to an agreement than each one’s defense of his own.
The psychological meaning of the problem may, however, lie deeper-in the husband’s general reluctance for social contact, and in the wife’s inability to make her life enjoyable and worthwhile during the day. Or it may be that she is of a demanding type, not satisfied that the husband provides the money and support, but desirous of his full attention and time when he is not engaged in spending them for his wife’s sustenance. The incident described is then merely an occasion for the deeper resentment to flare up.
Whenever any conflict arises, the first decision which both parties make-definitely, although unconsciously is whether to use these incidents as an occasion to fight, for hurting and being hurt, or whether to try sincerely to solve the problem. If the tendency is to quarrel, there can be no solution before one of them checks this inclination. Here we meet one of the most important obstacles to married happiness: the general belief that something can be gained by fighting. So both blame and scold and get excited-and prepare the field for the next fight. They are less interested in finding a solution than in being “right.”
Winning or losing this one fight will not help. What would help is social feeling-the feeling of belonging together-which makes every conflict a common problem, not a question of what he wants or she wants. Social feeling creates a “we” of which he and she are each only one part. Conflicting interests become opportunities for asserting unity through mutual effort, establishing conditions which both can enjoy together-in this case, either in staying at home or in going out. Confidence in each other stimulates mutual trust and willingness to assist each other. If he puts his interest in her hands, she is more likely to consider his desires rather than her own. This is especially true for children who voluntarily change stony stubbornness into willing consideration if they are asked what should be done. Adults are not much different.