Excerpt from huffingtonpost.com
One of the widely-held beliefs that threaten relationships is the
idea that being victorious in an argument is a good thing. That notion
is based in part on the assumption that when it comes to arguments,
there are only two possible outcomes: winning or losing. It’s a zero sum
game and if you don’t come out on top, there’s only one other place
that you can go. Given this mindset, it’s no surprise that so many
people, finding themselves embroiled in a relationship conflict, go for
the jugular and pull out the big guns. “Big guns” are inflated or
amplified threats, insults, and various forms of character
assassination. “You’re just like your mother!” “No wonder your last wife
left you!” “You’re the most selfish person I’ve ever known!” “I can’t
take this any more. I’m calling a lawyer tomorrow!” “I should have
listened to my friends who warned me not to marry you!” And these are
just the mild ones!
Then there are the more subtle forms of
coercion and manipulation that are designed to discredit the other
person’s position or to invalidate their concerns in order to defeat
their efforts to defend themselves in the face of an attack.
There
are an infinite variety of strategies for winning an argument, but
there are only a few motives that drive the compulsion to win. The most
prevalent one is the desire to avoid an anticipated humiliation,
punishment, or loss of power by defeating the other person and thus
affirming a dominant position in the relationship. When there is not a
high level of mutual trust in the relationship, both partners are likely
to feel a strong need to be concerned with the degree of power and
control they possess, since they are vulnerable to abuse, exploitation,
and domination. The build-up of interpersonal defenses and aggressive
behaviors, is not an effective deterrent to attack, not does it ever
repair damaged trust. On the contrary, it adds to the problem and often
provokes further aggression.
Consequently, trying to “win” an
argument by defeating the other person not only fails to address the
underlying problem, but generally intensifies it. While one person may
appear to win the battle, both of them lose the war. When it comes to
committed relationships, when one person loses in the short run, they
both lose in the long run. When someone loses or gives up in
resignation, trust goes down and communication closes up. Even though
the active fighting may end, the underlying issues have not been
adequately addressed and the differences between both parties haven’t
been adequately resolved.
When this is the case, the spirit of
mutual support and co-operation is broken and both partners begins to
see each other as an adversary rather than teammates on the same team.
When this occurs, vulnerability is replaced with defensiveness,
interrupting the flow of honest communication, and each person becomes
more concerned with personal protection than the establishment of a
mutually satisfying outcome. This diminishes the feelings of good will
that are necessary to re-establish trust and shared respect.
At
this point both partners are operating from separate personal intentions
that are misaligned, making the relationship feel adversarial rather
than cooperative. Now, each person sees the other as someone they need
protection from and/or need to defeat, rather than a source of support
and comfort. Fear, rather than love has become the dominant motivator in
the relationship on both sides.
Even when one person seems to be more
angry than frightened, in fact, both are possessed by fear, but may be
enacting different protective strategies (such as aggression and
withdrawal or intimidation and accommodation).
When arguments fail
to identify or address the underlying issue that has been activated,
there is no way that that information can be accessed when both partners
are driven by the need to protect and defend. When this occurs it is
likely that the real concerns will become submerged and go underground
in order to create a truce which is a temporary disarmament that is
necessary in order to engage in the relations that are necessary to
continue and sustain normal life.
“Normal life,” however, is not
synonymous with a mutually fulfilling and loving relationship. It is
merely one in which active conflict is temporarily absent or minimized
and the obligations and responsibilities of daily living can be
satisfied. While this may be preferable to having a relationship that is
actively antagonistic and mutually destructive, it is a far cry from
what most couples envision when they initially share their intention to
create a committed partnership. It is also far less than what is
possible when two people are able and willing to hold and honor a vision
of an ever-growing, ever-deepening, connection that becomes more loving
and fulfilling over time.
Differences are inevitable in all relationships. Conflict is optional.
When
we try to settle differences by winning the argument rather than
seeking to find greater understanding from it, we deny ourselves the
opportunity to learn more about ourselves and our partner and we miss
the opportunity to engage in the practices that can make us a more
skilled, loving, and responsible person.
While not all
relationships are “made in heaven,” a lot more of them have the
potential to become heavenly that we may think, if we are willing to
challenge and interrupt embedded defensive patterns that may be doing us
more harm than good. Perhaps it’s time to trade in the old clunker for a
new model!
Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AscensionEarth2012/~3/BPkKTZ3RjHY/the-prices-you-pay-for-winning-argument.html
The Prices You Pay for Winning an Argument
No comments:
Post a Comment