|
Across
from me sat an attractive married couple. Both were
Christians, articulate, well educated, established in
their careers, and financially and materially
successful. Yet, tension filled the counseling
room as they each related their hurts and wounds.
Neither appeared to be able to constrain their anger.
When asked about the major issues of their conflict,
the wife asserted, "We have never been able to
settle one single issue."
Uncommon?
Only found in a few marriages? No, it is very
common. Definitely, this couple was on the
explosive side of the scale, but as fallen people, we
all face conflict with others. Anger is often the
companion of conflict. Making conflict work for
us rather than undermining our relationship is our
task.
This
is the first of a two part series on dealing with
anger and conflict within marriage. We will look at an
overview of the emotion of anger. The second part of
this series will address five conflict strategies,
with patterns of communication and behavioral style to
accompany those strategies. By identifying
unhealthy patterns and moving toward more productive
ways of resolving conflict, the marital relationship
can grow.
Anger
has been defined and described in a number of ways.
Butman defines anger as "an intense emotional
reaction, sometimes directly expressed in overt
behavior and sometimes remaining a largely unexpressed
feeling. It is not a disease but rather a social event
that has meaning in terms of the implicit social
contract between persons. Being angry is an
emotional readiness to aggress. It is caused by
and maintained by multiple factors and is best viewed
as an interpersonal process."
Tavris
describes anger as a "process, a transaction, a
way of communicating. With the possible exception of
anger caused by organic abnormalities, most angry
episodes are social events; they assume meaning only
in terms of the social contract between participants.
The beliefs we have about anger, and the
interpretations we give to the experience, are as
important to its understanding as anything intrinsic
to the emotion itself."
Anger
is a normal part of the human emotional spectrum.
Everyone has experienced anger, and it is accompanied
by a number of recognizable cues. Physically, one's
muscles become tense, adrenaline is dumped into the
body. The fight or flight mechanism is
activated, eyes flash, the senses are alert, and
breathing quickens. Speech may be rapid, at a
higher pitch, and with increased volume.
Descriptive
phrases, such as "he blew up," "she
vented her spleen," and "I saw red"
paint a verbal picture of the emotion of anger.
This picture is enhanced from etymology.
The
English word anger is derived from the old Norse word
angre, which means affliction (Latin: ad fligere = to
strike at). In German anger is the noun of arg, which
means wicked; anger therefore is the emotional
response to wicked stimuli.
The
Greek word used in the Bible for anger/wrath is thymos.
The root, thym, is cognate with the Latin fumus,
meaning smoke or steam. Another word equated
with anger, indignation, or wrath is orge. In
classical literature, the "cognate of organo"
(be puffed up, swell, be excited) means a natural
impulse, temperament, disposition, mood.
Regarding
anger theory, there are three major camps: the
hydraulic model, frustration creates anger, and anger
is a socially learned behavior. Butman gives a summary
of each position. The hydraulic model suggests that
anger is instinctual. "If it is not
discharged, it will accumulate from within like water
behind a dam. In other words, anger comes from
within the individual rather that from the environment
. . . there is physiological evidence to suggest that
aggression is influenced by heredity, blood chemistry,
and brain diseases."
The
major tenet of the second theory holds that anger is
created when an individual encounters frustration.
"This theory holds that when appropriate
aggressive cues are present, anger may be released as
aggression (verbal or physical) or turned inward
against oneself. Frustration is inevitable in the
human experience, and the larger the gap between one's
expectations and one's achievements, the more likely
one is to become angry. Especially vulnerable to
such frustrations are those persons who drive
themselves hard and set increasingly high expectations
for self and others, and who by nature are intensely
competitive. Much of the research on cognitive
strategies in psychotherapy supports this theory.
Butman's
final summary is of the position held by Bandura,
which contends that anger is a socially learned
behavior. There is an abundance of research
literature that substantiates this position. "Bandura,
for example, has observed that the socialization of
angry feelings is affected by experience and by
observing others' success with aggressive behaviors.
Anger, then, is a state of arousal that can be
experienced differently depending on how the source is
perceived. In other words, arousal can be shaped
by the environment into anger. Anger is a particular
response to arousal, one that can be redirected into
affection, humor, or compassion. Humans have the
capacity, social learning theorists contend, to
rechannel unacceptable impulses (e.g. the desire to
aggress) into acceptable, even creative, actions.
Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., are two examples
of individuals who put anger to such socially
constructive uses.
All
three theories have research support, and if one
examines his or her own life experience, he or she
will find evidence to support each theory. One may
hear, "My father was a hot tempered man" or
"I am so frustrated I could just scream" or
watch little sister model big sister and throw a
temper tantrum. All of these theories aid in helping
one understand anger, and, with an increased
understanding, develop ways to direct the outworking
of anger that is not destructive in intimate
relationships.
Within
intimate relationships, anger and conflict will be
experienced. Each person brings a myriad of values,
expectations, perceived right and goals to a marriage.
The mate will not always share this personal
"code book" or paradigm. When a
perceived right or value is violated, or a goal or
expectation is blocked, the felt emotional response is
usually anger. It may range from mild irritation to
rage, depending on the strength of the goal, right,
value or expectation. The emotion of anger is not
inherently right or wrong, good or evil. It is
neutral of itself and merely an indicator that
something is awry, much like the red warning light in
a car. What one does with anger, the action taken, can
be right or wrong, destructive or constructive. That
action may be external or internal. One may abuse a
spouse or repress anger only to have it erupt in
physical maladies.
To
illustrate how our values and beliefs affect anger,
one Sunday morning I awoke with a splitting headache
to the point that I was nauseated and could not keep
anything down. I had a responsibility of
teaching an adult Sunday school class. At 8:30,
I was able to keep down a Tylenol and shortly after
9:00, I felt I could teach. By this time,
though, I would be somewhat late for class. Upon
arriving in class, I made the statement, "I
apologize for being late." Kathy, my wife,
immediately said, "Dub has already been sick this
morning." When she made that comment to the
class, I immediately flashed. I was angry, but did not
say anything. I sat down, concealed my anger and asked
someone to pray before we began the class. It's
a little difficult to pray when you are angry.
Inside, I was churning.
On
the way home from church, I began to try to understand
my emotion. I realized I felt betrayed, exposed
and vulnerable, but was unsure why. I knew Kathy would
not intentionally betray, expose or offend me. Later
it occurred to me that my mother was an "iron
lady." She would seldom let people know
when she was ill, and if she was, she would continue
to work. Though it was never spoken, I developed
a belief that sickness was weakness. Kathy had exposed
my weakness to the class. This belief,
"sickness is weakness," was not held by
Kathy. In fact, her belief was just the opposite:
if you are sick, you should be extended the
appropriate help, kindness, etc.
In
this situation, an external demonstration of anger was
prevented by the social situation. The anger was there
and was experienced. We had a conflict in values,
belief systems, or rules by which we live. I applied
two conflict strategies and later and appropriate
communication style that proved positive for both of
us. We both understood ourselves and each other a
little better. This illustration will be expanded in
the next newsletter after identifying a number of
conflict strategies that most people employ at one
time or another in an intimate relationship.
In
the first section of this article the emotion of anger
was addressed. It was suggested that anger could act
like a red light warning you that a perceived right
was violated or some goal/expectation was blocked. The
way we address this is often learned behavior.
We develop conflict strategies. The remainder of this
article will identify these strategies and the
strengths and weaknesses of each.
Augsburger
provides a diagram for weighing conflict strategies.
This diagram is presented below:
Using his basic work, I have given labels to each
strategy: "yield,"
"withdraw," "win,"
"compromise," and "resolve," and I
have redesigned his diagram.
Individuals
at different times in varying circumstances will use
different strategies. However, depending on his or her
personality, background and values, one will tend to
utilize one strategy most often.
The
"yield" strategy says, "I have a high
regard for the relationship." When there is
a difference or conflict with the other person's
wants, needs, or desires, the other person's desires
are placed first. This sounds noble. However, there is
a major drawback. One's needs, wants, or desires
are not met or are seldom met. If this is a way of
life, then resentment, bitterness, and frustration
begin to creep in. As these begin to stockpile, more
and more strain is placed on the relationship.
Often, some small event will trigger an explosion,
much like a dam breaking. This leaves the other mate
wondering, "Where did all that come from?"
The one exploding, upon reviewing the actual--and it
may be trivial--incident, may be filled with guilt or
remorse for being so angry and out of control. There
may also be great fear of loss of love or permanent
damage to the relationship. Usually a resolution
is made, "I'll never let that happen again,"
and one returns to the "yield" strategy.
Satir
identifies this "yield" style of
communication as a "placater."
"What you want is okay. I am just here to
make you happy." The placater always talks
in an ingratiating way, trying to please, apologizing,
and never disagreeing, no matter what. He's a
"yes man." He talks as though he could
do nothing for himself; he must always get someone to
approve of him.
Hyatt
describes this "yield" behavior pattern and
refers to these individuals as "doves."
Giving, loving, gentle, sensitive, Doves need love.
Their happiness and security depend upon the love of
just about everybody-- and if it costs them
themselves, for Doves the price is right.
A
second strategy is "withdraw." When conflict
arises, get out, leave, or utilize the "silent
treatment." There is a place for
withdrawal. If I am about to lose it emotionally
and say or do something foolish, then it is better to
withdraw, but only for a short period of time.
If there is a real danger of physical violence, then
withdrawal is a very sound strategy. However, as
a rule, to run from all conflict and never face it is
to lose for both parties. There is no way to
make contact.
"Do
you want to talk about it?" "No!"
There is nothing else that can be done. At this
point, neither parties' needs are met, and it
communicates a low regard for the relationship, an
unwillingness to invest or face risk for the sake of a
growing relationship. One cannot only withdraw
by silence, but also by being irrelevant, distracting,
or by changing the subject. Satir refers to this type
of communicator as a "distracter."
"Whatever the distracter does or says is
irrelevant to what anyone else is saying or doing. He
never makes a response to the point."
Hyatt
describes the "withdraw" person in his book
as an "ostrich." "Cool, judicious,
detached and distant, ostriches need space. If
anyone comes too close, they run, and they are among
the fastest runners on earth. They also do what the
ostrich is more popularly thought to do: avoid
confrontation - or worse disappointment - they bury
their heads, and their hearts and their gifts.
A
third strategy is "win." This person goes
for the victory. His needs, wants and desires
will be met. Much like a high-pressure salesman, the
goal is to sell, regardless of the cost to the
relationship and without consideration to further
business. This is very much a right - wrong
mindset. I win, you lose. Power and control are the
key variables. Utilize whatever tool is available to
bring about victory; anger, manipulation, cold logic,
etc. Of course, the obvious drawback is the
destruction of the relationship. "Win the
battle and lose the war" is an appropriate cliché.
Hyatt refers to these individuals as
"hawks." They thrive on conflict,
power and control. This type of communicator can be
"blamer" or "Mr. or Mrs.
Computer." The blamer is a faultfinder, a
dictator, a boss. He acts superior, and he seems to be
saying, "If it weren't for you, everything would
be all right." The internal feeling is one of
tightness in the muscles and in the organs. Meanwhile,
the blood pressure is increasing. The voice is hard,
tight, and often shrill and loud.
The
computer is very correct, very reasonable with no
semblance of any feeling showing. He is calm, cool,
and collected. He could be compared to an actual
computer or a dictionary. The body feels dry,
often cool, and disassociated. The voice is dry
monotone, and the words are likely to be abstract.
A
fourth strategy is "compromise." This sounds
really good. "You scratch my back, I'll scratch
yours" and "marriage is a 50/50
proposition" are a couple of the familiar
expressions of this idea. It does have some
strengths. There is concern for the relationship
as well as for the needs, wants and desires of each
other. Sacrifice is called for. The
difficulty is determining what is 50%.
Recently,
our home was to be the meeting place for a group on
Sunday afternoon. My wife had planned to clean
house on Saturday. Early Saturday morning, a friend
called and offered us tickets to the football game.
The hesitation I sensed as I shared this golden
opportunity with my wife clued me to the fact that we
may be embracing different goals. We forged a
compromise; I would clean the living room and she
would clean the kitchen - 50/50. Within the hour, I
announced the living room was cleaned. Looks of
doubt crossed my wife's face. "Did you dust the
top shelf?" she asked. "Are any of our
guests seven feet tall?" was my reply.
I
felt I had done my 50%. She saw it as less than
50%, so conflict and tension still remained. As
humans, we often assess the situation differently than
do our mates. What is fair? What is equal?
These are difficult questions to answer.
Compromise is necessary in relationships. To be
open to sacrifice is healthy, and it does demand that
people communicate. Certainly, it has its place in
marriage.
The
final strategy is "resolve." This is an
attempt for both parties to "win." The
essential difference from compromise, where one would
barter and trade for a partial fulfillment of his or
her goals, is the attempt to affirm each other,
thereby strengthening the relationship, and to work
toward negotiating joint goals. This involves
honest communication. Affirmation and assertiveness,
care and confronting are combined. Augsburger
states, "This in interpersonal communication at
its best. Caring - I want to stay in respectful
relationship with you, and confronting - I want you to
know where I stand and what I'm feeling, needing,
valuing and wanting.
Satir
describes this type of communication as
"leveling." "So when you are
leveling you apologize in reality when you realize
you've done something you didn't intend. You are
apologizing for an act, not for your existence.
There are times when you need to criticize and
evaluate. When you do this in a leveling way, you are
evaluating and act and not blaming the person, and
there is usually a new direction you have to offer.
There are times when you're talking about intellectual
kinds of things such as giving lectures, making
explanations, giving directions, and so on, where
precise word meanings are essential. When you
are leveling in this area, you are still showing your
feelings, moving freely while you're explaining. You
aren't coming off like a machine. So many people
who make their living with their brains - scientists,
mathematicians, accountants, teachers, and therapists
- come off like machines and epitomize the computing
response. In addition, there are times when you
want to or need to change the subject. In the leveling
response you can say what you want instead of hopping
all over the place. The leveling response is
real for whatever is.
All
conflict strategies and communication patterns are
used within marriage, sometimes appropriately and
sometimes inappropriately. The goal is to express love
and truth. "When situations of conflict become
difficult, I want to speak clearly, honestly,
personally, directly, in simple statements. This
provides the greatest impact with the least confusion
or distortion. I may or may not be able to break
through the conflict to understanding, but I can
express both love and truth."
The
ancient Hebrews expressed this idea in the book of
Proverbs. "Pleasant words are a honeycomb, sweet
to the soul and healing to the bones." (Proverbs
16:24, NIV) "A gentle answer turns away
wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger."
(Proverbs 15:1, NIV) "A fool gives full vent to
his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under
control." (Proverbs 29:11, NIV)
W.D.
"Dub" Rogers, Ph.D
|