The Dance of Anger - a woman's guide to changing the patterns of intimate relations

[fibiray]

The Challenge of Anger

Anger is a signal, and one worth listening to. Our anger may be a message that we are being hurt, that our rights are being violated, that our needs or wants are not being adequately met, or simply that something is not right. Our anger may tell us that we are not addressing an important emotional issue in our lives, or that too much of our self - our beliefs, values, desires, or ambitions - is being compromised in a relationship. Our anger may be a signal that we are doing more and giving more than we can comfortably do or give. Or our anger may warn us that others are doing too much for us, at the expense of our own competence and growth. Just as physical pain tells us to take our hand off the hot stove, the pain of our anger preserves the very integrity of our self. Our anger can motivate us to say 'no to the ways in which we are defined by others and 'yes' to the dictates of our inner self. Women, however, have long been discouraged from the awareness and forthright expression of anger. sugar and spice are the ingredients from which we are made. We are the nurturers, the soothers, the peacemakers and the steadiers of rocked boats. It is our job to please, protect and placate the world. We may hold relationships in place as if our lives depended on it.
Woemn who openly express anger at men are especially suspect. Even when society is sympathetic to our goals of equality, we all know that 'those angry women' turn everybody off. Unlike our male heros, who fight and even die for what they believe in, women may be condemned for waging a bloodless and humane revolution for their own rights. The direct expression of anger, especially at men makes us unladylike, unfeminine, unmaternal, sexually unattractive or more recently strident.' Even our language condemns such women as shrews, wotches, *****es, hags, nags and so forth. Theya re devoid of femininity. Certainly you do not wish to become one of them. It is an interesting sidelight that our language created and codified by men does not have one unflattering term to describe men who vent their anger at women. Even such epithests as bastard', and 'sob' do not condemn the man but place the blame on a woman - his mother.
The taboos against our feeling and expressing anger are so powerful that even knowing when we are angry is not a simple matter. When a woman shows her anger she is likely to be dismissed as irrational or worse. At a progessional conference attended recently, a young doctor presented a paper about battered women. She shared many new and exciting ideas and conveyed a deep and personal involvement in her subject. In the middle of her presentation, a well known phsychiatrist who was seated nearby got up to leave. As he stood, he turned to the man next to him and made his diagnositc pronouncement: now that is a very angry woman.' That was that! The fact that he detected or thought he detected an angry tone to her voice disqualified not only what she had to say but also who she was. Because the very possibility that we are angry often meets with rejection and disapproval from others, it is no wonder that it is hard for us to know let alone admit that we are angry.
Why are angry women so threatening to others? If we are guilty, depressed or self doubting, we stay in place. We do not take action except against our own selves and we are unlikely to be agencts of personal and social change. In contrast, angry women may change and challenge the lives of us all, as witnessed by the past decade of feminism. And change is an anxiety arousing and difficult business for everyone including those of use who are actively pushing for it.
This we learn too fear our own anger, not only because it brings about the disapporval of others, but also because it signals the necessity for change. We may begin to ask ourselves questions that serve to block or invalidate our own experience of anger: is my anger legitimate? Do I have a right to be angry? What's the use of my getting angry? These questions can be excellent ways of silencing ourselves and shutting off our anger.
Let us question these questions. Anger is neither legitimate or illegitimate, meaningful nor pointless. Anger simply is. To ask, is my anger legitimate? is similar to asking do I have the right to be thirsty? After all, I just had a glass of water 15 minutes ago. Surely my thirst is not legitimate. And besides what's the point of getting thirsty when I can't get anything to drink anyway.
Anger is something we feel. It exists for a reason and always deserves our respect and attention. We all have a right to everything we feel and certainly our anger is no exception.
Thereare questions about anger however, that may be helpful to ask ourselves: what am I angry about? what is the problem? whose problem is it?How can I sort out who is responsible for what? How can I express my anger without leaving myself feeling powerless and helpless? When I am angry how can I clearly communicate my position without becoming defensive or attacking?
There is however, another side of the coin: if feeling angry signals a problem, venting anger does not solve it. Venting anger may serve to maintain and even rigidify the old rules and patters in a relationship thus ensuring that change does not occur. When emotional intensity is high, many of us engage in non-productive efforts to change the other person and in so doing, fail to exercise our power to clarify and change our own selves. The old anger in anger out theory which states that letting it all hang out offers protection from the psychological hazards of keeping it all pent up is simply not true. Feelings of depression low self esteem, self betrayal and even self hatred are inevitable when we fight but continue to submit to unfair circumstances when we complain but live in a way that betrays our hopes, values and ptentials or when we find ourselfve fulfilling society's stereotype of the *****y naggging bitter or destructive woman. Those of us who are locked int ineffective expressions of anger suffer as deeply as those of us who dare not get angry at all.



The dance of anger - harriet Lerner (harpercollins)

[fibiray]

Anger gone wrong

If our old familiar ways of managing anger are not working for us, chances are that we fall into one or both of the following categories: In the nice-lady category, we attempt to avoid anger and conflict at all costs. In the ***** category, we get angry with ease, but we participate in ineffective fighting, complaining and blaming that leads to no constructive resolution.
These two styles of managing anger may appear to be as different as night and day. In reality, they both serve equally well to protect others, to blur our clarity of self, and to ensure that change does not occur. Let's see how this works.

The nice lady syndrome

If we are nice ladies' how do we behave? In situations that might realistically evoke anger or protest, we stay silent - or become tearful, self critical or hurt. If we do feel angry, we keep it to ourselves in order to avoid the possibility of open conflict. But it is not just our anger that we keep to ourselves; in addition we may avoid make clear statements about what we think and feel, when we suspect that such clarity would make another person uncomfortable and expose differences between us. When we behave in this way, our primary energy us directed toward protecting another person and preserving the harmony of our relationships at the expense of defining a clear self. Over time we may lose our clarity of self, because we are putting so muc effort into reading other people's reactions and ensuring that we don't rock the boat, we may become less and less of an expert about our own thoughts, feelings and wants.
The more we are nice in these ways, the more we accumulate a storehouse of unconscious anger and rage. Anger is inevitable when our lives consist of giving in and going aong; when we assume responsibility for other people's feelings and reactions; when we relinquish our primary responsibility to proceed with our own growth and ensure the quality of our own lives; when we behave as if having a relationship is more important than having a self. Of course, we are forbidden from experiencing this anger directly, since nice ladies by definition are not angry women.
Thus begins a self defeating and self perpetuating cycle. The more we give in and go along, the more our anger builds. The more we intensify our repressive efforts the more we unconsciously fear a volvanic eruption should we begin to let our anger out. So the more desperately we repress ...... and so it goes. When we finally do blow, we may then confirm our worst fears that our anger is indeed irrational and destructive. And othe rpeople may write us off as neurotic while the real issues go unaddressed and the cycle begins again.
Although nice ldies are not very good at feeling angry, we may be great at feeling guilty. As with depression or feeling hurt, we may cultivate guilt in order to blot out the awareness of our own anger. Anger and guilt are just about incompatible. If we feel guilty about not giving enough or not doing enough for others, it is unlikely we will be angry about not getting enough. If we feel guilty that we are not properly fulfilling our precribed feminine role, we will have neither the energy nor the insight to question the precription itself - or who has done the prescribing. Nothing, but nothing will block the awareness of anger so effectively as guilt and self doubt. Our society cultivates guilt feelings in women such that many of us still feel guilty if we are anything less than an emotional service station to others.
Nor is it easy togain the courage to stop feeling guilty and begin to use our anger to question and define what is right and appropriate for our own lives. Just at that point when we are serious about change, others may redouble their guilt inducing tactics. We may be called selfish, immature, egocentric, rebellious, unfeminine, neurotic, irresponsible and cold. Such slurs on our character are perhaps more than many of us can bear. when we are taught that our worth and identity are to be found in loving and being loved, it is indeed devastating to have our attractiveness and womanliness questioned. How tempting it may be to shuffle apologetically back to our proper place in order to regain the approval of others. Unlike the *****es among us who are doomed to lose popularity contests if not our jobs, nice ladies are rewarded by society. The personal cost however are very high and affect every aspect of our emotional and intellectual life. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil becomes the unconsciousrule for those of us who must deny the awareness and expression of our anger. The evil that we must avoid includes any number of thoughts, feelings and actions that might bring us into open conflict or even disagreement with important others. To obey this rule, we must become sleepwalkers. We must not see clearly, think precisely or remember freely. The amount of creative, intellectual and sexual energy that is trapped by this need to repress anger and remain unaware of it's source is simply incalculable.

The dance of anger - harriet Lerner (harper collins)

[fibiray]

The *****y Woman

Those of us who are *****es are not shy about getting angry and stating our differences. However in a society that does not particularly value angry women, this puts us in danger of earning one or another of those labels that serve as a warning to silence us when we threaten others, especially men. Like theword 'unfeminine' but even more so, these labels may ahve the power either to shock us into silence or to further inflame us by intensifying our feelings of injustice and powerlessness. In the latter case, such labels can become self fulfilling prophecies.
But this is only part of the story. The negative words and images that depict women who do speak out are more than just cruel sexist stereotypes, they also hint at a painful reality. Words like nagging, complaining and *****ing imply even the possibility of change. They are words that reflect the stuck position that characterises our lives when a great deal of emotion is flying around and nothing is really changing.
When we vent our anger ineffectively, we can easily get locked into a self perpetuating downward cycle ofbehaviour. We do have something to be angry about, but our complaints are not clearly voiced and we may elicit other peoples disapproval instead of their sympathy. This only increases our sense of bitterness and injustice; yet, all the while the actual issue goes unidentified. On top of that we may become a prime scapegoat for men who dread femal anger and for women who wish to avoid their own.
Obviously it requires courage to know when we are angry and to let others hear about it. The problem occurs when we get stuck in a pattern of ineffective fighting, complaining and blaming that only preserves the status quo. When this happens we unwittingly protect others at our own expense. On the one hand, an angry woman is threatening. When we voice our anger ineffectively however - without clarity, direction and control - it may in the end be reassuring to others. We allow ourselves to be written off and we provide others with an excuse not to take us seriously and hear what we are saying. In fact we even help others to stay clam. Have you ever watched another person get cooler, clamer and more intellectual as you become more infuriated and hysterical? Here the nature of our fighting or angry accusations may actually allow the other person to get off the hook.
Those of us who fight ineffectively are usually caught up in unsuccessful efforts to change a person who does not want to change. When our attempts to change the other person's beliefs, reactions or behaviours do not work, we may then continue to do more of the same, reaching in predictable patterned ways that only escalate the very problems we complain about. We may be also driven by emotionality that we do not reflect on our options for behaving differently or even believe that new options are possible. Thus our fighting protects the old familiar patterns in our relationships as surely as does the silence of the 'nice ladies'.
We have all had first hand experience with both of these self defeating and self perpetuating behaviour patterns. indeed 'nice ladies' and '*****es' are simply two sides of the same coin, despite their radically different appearance. After all is said and done - or not said and done - the outcome is the same; We are left feeling helpless and powerless. We do not feel in control of the quality and direction of our lives. Our sense of dignity and self esteem suffers because we have not effectively clarified and addressed the real issues at hand. And nothing changes.
Most of us have recieved little help in learning to use our anger to clarify and strengthen ourselves and our relationships. Instead our lessons have encouraged us to fear anger excessively, to deny it entirely, to displace it onto inappropriate targets, or to turn it against ourselves. We learn to deny that there is any cause for anger, to close our eyes to its true sources, or to vent anger effectively, in a manner that only maintains rather than challenges the status quo.


The dance of anger - Harriet Lerner (harper collins)

[fibiray]

In order to use our anger as a tool for change in relationships, we will be learning to develop and sharpen our skills in four areas:

1. We can learn to tune in to the true sources of our anger and clarify where we stand. "what about the situation makes me angry?" What is the real issue here? What do I think and feel? What do I want to accomplish? Who is responsible for what? What, specifically do I want to change? What are the things I will and will not want to change? These may seem like simple questions, but we will see just how complex they can be. It is amazing how frequently we march off to battle without knowing what the war is all about. We may be putting our anger energy into trying to change or control a person who does not want to change, rather than putting that same energy into getting clear about our own position and choices. This is especially true in our closest relationships where if we do not learn to use our anger first to clarify our own thoughts and feelings, priorities and choices, we can easily get trapped in endless cycles of fighting and blaming that go nowhere. Managing anger effectively goes hand in hand with developing a clearer 'I' and becoming a better expert on the self.

2 We can learn communication skills. This will maximise the chances that we will be heard and that conflicts and differences will be negotiated. On the one hand, there may be nothing wrong with venting our anger spontenously, as we feel it, and without intervening thought and deliberation. There are circumstances in which this is helpful and those in which it is simply necessary - that is, if we are not abusive in doing so. Many times however, blowing up or fighting may offer temporary relief, but when the storm passes, we find that nothing has really changed. Further, there are certain relationships in which maintaining a calm, non-blaming position is essential in order fro lasting change to occur.

3 We can learn to observe and interrupt non-productive patterns of interaction. Communicating clearly and effectively is difficult even in the bestof circumstances. When we are angry, it is more difficult still. It is hardly possible to be self observant or flexible in the midst of a tornado. When emotions are high, we can learn to calm down and stand back a bit in order to sort out the part we play in the interactions that we complain about.
Learning to observe and change our part in relationship patterns foes hand in hand with an increased sense of personal responsibility in every relationship that we are in. By responsibility, I do not mean self blame or the labelling of ourselves as the cause of the problem. Rather I speak her of response - ability - that is the ability to observe ourselves and others in interaction and to respond to a familiar situation in a new and different way. We cannot make another person change his or her steps to an old dance, but if we change our own steps, the dance no longer can continue in the same predictable pattern

4 We can learn to anticipat and deal with counter moves or change back reactions from others. Each of us belongs to larger groups or systems that have some investment in our staying the same as we are now. If we begin to change our old pattersn of silence or vagueness or ineffective fighting and blaming, we will inevitably meet with a strong resistance or counter move. This change back reaction will come both from inside our own selves and from significant others around us. We will see how it is those closest to us who often have the greatest investment in our staying the same, despite whatever criticisms and complaints they may openly voice. We also resist the very change, that we seek. This resistance to change like the will to change, is a natural and universal aspect of all human systems.
We will look at the strong anxiety that inevitably is aroused when we begin to use our anger to define our own selves and the terms of our own lives more clearly. Some of us are able to start out being clear in our communications and firm in our resolve to change, only to back down in the face of another persons defensiveness or attempts to disqualify what we are saying. If we are serious about change, we can learn to anticipate and manage the anxiety and guilt evoked in us in response to the counter moves or change back reactions of others. More difficult still is acknowledging that part of our inner selves that fears and resists change.
For now let me say that it is never easy to move away from silent submission or ineffective fighting toward a clam but firm assertion of who we are, where we stand, what we want, and what is and is not acceptable to us. Our anxiety about clarifying what we think and how we feel may be greatest in our most important relationships. As we become truely clear and direct other people may become just as clear and direct about their own thoughts and feeling or about the fact that they are not going to change. When we accept these realities
we may have some painful choices to make. Do we choose to stay in a particular relationship or situatio? do we choose to leave? These are not easy questions to answer or even to think about.
In the short run it is sometimes simpler to continue with our old familiar ways, even when personal experience has shown them to be less than effective. In the long run however, there is much to be gained by putting the lessons we learn into practice. Not only can we acquire new ways of managing old anger; we can also gain a clearer and stringer "i" and with it the capcity for a more intimate and gratifying 'we.' Many of our problems with anger occure when we choose between having a relationship and having a self.

The dance of anger - harriet lerner (harper collins)

[fibiray]

Old moves, new moves and counter moves


The evening before my my workshop on anger was cheduled to take place, a woman names barbara telephoned me at home to cancel her registration. In a voice that conveyed both resentment and distress, she told me the following;
I so much wanted to come to your workshop but my husband put his foot down. I fought with him until I was blue in the face, but he wont let me come.
What was his objection? I asked.
You! she said. He said that you were a radical womans libber and that the workshop was not worth the money. I told hm that you were a well known psychologist and that the workshop would certianly be very good. Im sure the workshop is worth the money but I couldn't convince hom of that. 'No,' was his final word.
I hung up the phone and thought about the brief conversation that had just taken place. clearly this woman did not have to cancel her registration to the workshop. she could have chosen to do otherwise. She could not however, have chosen to do otherwise without consequences. Perhaps the consequence that she feared was the loss of her most important relationship. What is you reaction to the phone call. Do you think her husband is a chauvinist? Do you feel sorry for the poor woman? Do you think he or she is to blame? Can you relate tot his at all.
We each have our own person reactionto what barbara said. Many of us will not want to identify with her story. Yet, what she does and how she feels is far from outdated or unique;
she submits to unfair circumstances
she does not feel in control of her life
she has not effectively addressed the real issues at hand
she is unclear about her own contribution to her dilemma
she sacrifices her own growth to bolster and protect her husband
she preserves the status quo in her marriage at the expense of her own self
she avoids testing how much flexibility her marriage has to tolerat change on her part
she feels helpless and powerless
she turns anger into tears
she gets headaches
she does not like herself
she believes that she behaves badly

Are any of these familiar to you? Probably not. One or all of these things happen to us when we engage in ineffective fighting and blaming or when we are afraid to fight at all.
Unlike some women who dare not differ with their husbands or lovers, barbara has no problem getting angry. Her problem is that she fights in a manner that ensures that change will not occur and she protects her husband and the status quo of their relationship at the expense of her own growth. Carry on as she may, barbara does not challenge the rules. She de-selfing herself for her man.
What is de-selfing? Obviously we do not always get our way in a relationship or do everything that we would like to do. When 2 people live under the same roof, differences inevitably arise which require compromise, negotiation and give and take. If barbara's husband was upset about the workshop and if the w/shop was not really that important to her, she might have decided to forget it. this in itself would not necessarily be a problem for her.
the problem occurs when one person often a wife does more giving in and going along that is her share and does not have a sense of clarity about her decisions and control over her choices. De-selfing means that too much of one's self (including one's thoughts, wants, beliefs and ambitions) is negotiable under pressur from the relationship. Even when the person doing the most compromising of self is not aware of it, de-selfing takes it's inevitable toll. The partner who is doing themost sacrificing of self stores up the most repressed anger and is especially vulnerable to becoming depressed and developing other emotional problems. She (and in some cases he) may end up in therapy or even a medical or psychiatric hospital saying whjat is wrong with me rather than asking what is wrong with the relationship? Or she may express her anger but at inappropriate times, over petty issues in a manner that may invites others simply to ignore her or to view her as irrational or sick.
A form of de-selfing common to women is called underfunctioning. The underfunctioning - over functioning pattern is familiar one in couples. How does it work? Research in marital systems has dmeonstrated that when women and men pair up, and stayed paired, they are usually at thesame level of independance or emotional maturity. Like a seesaw, it is theunderfunctioning of one individual that allows for the overfunctioning of the other.
A wife for example may become increasingly entrenched in the role of the weak, vulnerable, dependant or otherwise dysfunctional partner. Her husband to the same degree may disown and deny these qualities in himself. He may begin to direct the bulk of his emotional energy toward reacting to his spouse's problems rather than identifying and sharing his own. Underfunctioners and overfunctioners provoke and reinforce each others behaviour, so that the seesaw becomes increasingly hard to balance over time. The more the man avoids sharing his own weaknesses, neediness and vulnerability the more his woman may experience and express more than her share. The more the woman avoids showing her competence and strength the more her man will have an inflated sense of his own. And if the underfunctioninf partner starts looking better, the overfunctioning partner will start looking worse.
My brief phone conversation with barbara suggests that she is the underfunctioner in her marriage. Of course not all women sit on the bottom of the ssesaw in their relationships. In real life there are any number of happy and unhappy arrangements. A man may sit on the bottom of the seesaw or a couple may keep the see saw moving over time or each partner may compete with the other for the more helpless, one down position.
what is important is tha beingat the bottome of the seesaw relationship is culturally prescribed for women. While individual women may defy or even reverse the prescription, it in fact underlies our very definitions of femininity and the whole ethos of male dominance. Women are actively taught to cultural teachings that discourage us from competing with men or expressing anger at them are paradoxical warnings of how hurtful and destructive theweaker sex might be to me if we were simply to be ourselves.
Sure enough those old dictates to play dumb, let the man win, or pretend hes boss are out of vogue. But their message still remains a guiding rule that lurks in the unconsciousness of countless women.
Underfunctioning can take any number of forms. It may be as subtle as a wife's turning down a job opportunity or avoiding a new challenge when her husband gives a covert communication that he would prefer things to remain as they are or when she fears he would feel threatened by such a change. A woman may protect her man by confining herself to work that he prefersnot to do and by failing to recognise and develop interests and skills in his areas. She may in the process acquire emotional or physcial problems. Underlying her various complaints lurks the unconscious conviction that she must remain in a position of relative weakness for her more important relationship to survive. If the woman is further convinced that she herself cannot survive without the relationship she will like barbara vent her anger in a manner that only reinforces the old familiar patters from which her anger stems.

The dance of anger - Harriet Lerner (harper collins)

[fibiray]

Ineffective blaming versus assertive claiming

How does fighting and blaming actually serve to block rather than facilitate change? Let's analyse barbaras situation more closely. To begin with, barbara participated in a dead end battle about going to the workshop and used her anger energy to try to make her husband see things her way. There are two problems with her efforts to change her husband's mind: First he has as much right to his opinions and speculations about the w/shop as she has to hers. Second it is hardly likely that she is going to suceed in this venture. She may knoow from past experience that this particular w/shop is just the thing that her husband would say not to. As she said in her phone call, I'm sure the w/shop is worth the money but I couldn't convince him of that. 'no' was the final word.
by engaging in a battle that she could only lose to, she failed to exercise the power that she really did have - the power to take charge of her own self. Barbara would have taken significant step out of her de-selfed position had she clarified her own priorities and taken action on her own behalf. She might have refused to fight entirely and instead said to her husband, 'good or bad, radical or not the w/shop is important to me. If I cancel my registration because you want me to, I will end up feeling angry and resentful. I look forward to the w/shop and I plan to go.'
What prevented barbara from movingfrom ineffective fighting and complaining to clear and assertive claiming. Perhaps she feared paying a very high price for this move. Many of us who fight ineffectively like those of us weho don't fight at all, have an unconscious belief that the other person would have a very hard time if we were clear and strong. Our anxiety and guilt about the potential loss of a relationship may make it difficult for us to change in the first place and then to stay on course when our partner reacts strongly to our new and different behaviour.

The dance of anger - harriet Lerner (harper collins)

[fibiray]

I can so relate to this passage as I have spent most of my life fighting ineffectively with my mother and brother who refuse to change. It was quite stressful. The reality was that I never had a chance of winning an arguement with them anyway. This was pointed by my psychologist when he said that whenever you have three in a relationship, 2 against one you can never win. And this was certainly the case for me and the role I was in. Even today and despite my mother not being around, I can never win an arguement one on one with my sister or brother independantly because of how damaged they are. I need to learn how not to react to them and to simply accept and walk away. thanks for letting me share.

Fi
xxx :neutral:

[fibiray]

Making changes - Taking chances


What if barbara did something different and clarified a new position with her husband? What if she approached him at a time when he would be more receptive to hearing her and stated her position firmly and calmly without anger or tears? For instance: I know that you don't think the w/shop is worth the money and I appreciate that this is you opinion. However, Im a grown woman and I need to make my own decisions. I dont expect you to approve of the w/shop or to be happy about my going, but I do need to make this decision for myself.
Let us imagine that barbara could stand firm on the real issue here (I will make my own decisions) and avoid getting sidetracked into arguing other points such as the value of the w/shop or my character and credentials. Let us support that without fighting, blaming, accusing, or trying to change her husbands mind, she simply held to her statement of what she wanted to do: right or wrong, good or bad, I need to make this choice myself.
What next? What would happen to this couple if barbara challenged the status quo by calmly asserting her decision to attend the w/shop? What would her husband's next move be? Would he draw the line and say "if you go I'll leave you." Would he say nothing but then hit the bottle, have an affair or become abusive in some way? Would he respond more mildly and become grouchy or depressed for several days.
Of course we dont have the slightest idea. We know little about this couple. One thing however, is certain: Whenever one person makes a move to rebalance the seesaw, there is a countermove by the other party. If barbara behaved in this new way, her husband would make some change back, maneuver as an attempt to reduce his own anxiety and reinstate the old familiar patterns of fighting. Such a maneuver would occur not because he no longer loved his wife or because he was intimidated by this particular w/shop, but because he felt threatened by the new level of assertiveness, seperateness and maturity that barbara was demonstrating.
Barbara's new position would have implications far beyond the question of her attendance at an anger w/shop. It would be a statement that it is her responsibility not his to amke the decision about what she will and will not do. In calmly and firmlyclarifying this important issue in the relationship, she would no longer be the same woman whom he married and with whom he feels comfortable and secure. She too would be feeling very anxious and uncertain if she behaved in this new and different way. There are few things more anxiety rousing than shifting to a higher level of self assertion and seperatenenss in an important relationship and maintaining this position despite the countermoves of the other person.
If barbara gives up her fantasy that she can change her husband and starts using that same anger energy to clarify her choices and take new actions on her own behalf, she will be less troubled by the anger problems that spring from her de-selfed or underfunctioning position: headaches, low self esteem, chronic bitterness and dissatisfaction to name just a few. The price she will pay is that her marriage at least for a while will likely be rougher than ever. Underlying issues and conflicts will begin to surface. She may start asking herself some serious questions: who is responsible for making decisions about my life? How are power and decision making shared in this relationship?
Perhapes barbara is not ready to be sturggling with suchthreatening issues at this time. Perhaps she would get very little support in such a venture. perhaps she believes that any relationship is better than no relationship at all. For all we know she herself si scared to attend the w/shop and is unconsciously inviting her husband to express all the negative feelings for both of them.
It is important to appreciate that there are real dangers here. If barbara was to stand firm about the w/shop, she would inevitably feel an internal pressure to take a stand on other issues as well. Whereas in the past she and her husband may have fit together like two pieces of a puzzle, she would now be in the process of changing her shape. Would he change along with her so that they could continue to fit together, or would he eventually leave her? Would she, while making her own changes decide that she needed to leave him?
At least for now, barbara has made her choice to protect her husband and continue in the old ways. It is not simply an act of passive submission, rather it may well be an active choice to safeguard thepredictable familiarity and security of her most important relationship - her marriage.


The dance of anger - Harriet Lerner (Harper Collins)

[fibiray]

Peace at any price

In a certain way, barbara is not so unliberated as she may seem. She is able to express ideas and opinions that are different from her husbands'. She can recognise that what she wants for herself is not the same as what her husband wants for her. She also knows her priorities. She would prefer, at least in this instance, to accomodate to her husbands wishes rather than risk rocking the marital boat.
Many of us make such choices without being consciously aware of what we are doing and why we are doing it. We do not allow our own selves to know that we would lke to attend a w/shop on anger. We avoid entertaining new ideas and ways of thinking that would lead to overt conflict and disagreement in our relationships with important others. We may not allow ourselves to identify the unfair arrangements in which we participate. We may also cancel our registration to things new and different, but we may be unaware of the sacrifices we make to keep things on an even keel and ensure that peace reigns.
How might such a peace keeper have handled the w/shop situation. Most likely she would not have struggled with her partner, because there would have been nothing to fight about. She would not have considered attending an anger w/shop in the first place. She would not allowed herself to become seriously interested in anything that would threaten another person or disrupt the status quo in an importan relationship. If she did allow herself some initial interest in the w/shop she might test out her partne's reaction before she signed up. She might approach him and say 'listen Im thinking about attending this w/shop....'And then she would sensitiviely evaluate his spoken and unspoken response. If she picked up on any signals that he felt threatened or was disapporving, she would move in quickly to protect him. She might say to herself, 'well the w/shop probably wouldn't be that good....'
In this way a woman avoids conflict by defining her own wishes and preferences as being the same as what her partner wishes and prefers her to be. She defines her own self as hedefines her. She sarifices her awareness of who she is in her efforts to conform to his wants and expectations. The entire de-selfing process goes on unconsciously so that she may experience herself in perfect harmony with her husband. If she develops emotional or phsycial problems she may not associate her dysfunction with the self sacrifices that she has made in order to protect another person or keep a relationship calm.
In a somewhat less extreme position is the woman who would be able to maintain her interest in the w/shop despite the risk of recognising that she and her partner were not on one mind. She would allow herself to be aware that she is a seperate and different person from him, with ideas and preferences no less deserving of respect than his. Nonetheless, she might still find a way toa void bringing differences between her and her partner into bold relief and incurring his disapporval. She might say to herself, ' well I do want to got but I can tell there's going to be a big hassle if I push it and its not worth it.' It's not worth the fight is a familiar phrase that protects many of us from confronting the challenge of changing our behaviour. As barbaras situation illustrates, fighting per se is not the issue. What matters is the degree to which we are able to take a clear position in a relationship and behave in ways that are congruent with our stated beliefs.
Women who fall into the peacemakers or nice ladies category are by no means passive, wishy washy losers. Quite to the contrary we have developed an important and complex interpesonal skill that requires a great deal of inner activity and sensitivity. We are good at anticipating other people's reactions and we are experts at protecting others from uncomfortable feelings. This is a highly developed social skill that is all too frequently absent in men. If only we could take this very same skill and redirect it inward in order to become experts on our own selves.

The dance of Anger - Harriet Lerner (Harper Collins)

[fibiray]

Seperation and togetherness


Making a long term relationship work is a difficult business because it requires the capacity to strike a balance between individualism and togetherness. The tugs in both directions are very strong. On one hand we want to be seperate, independant individuals - self contained persons in our own right; on the other we seek a sense of coneectedness and intimacy with another person as well as a sense of belongingness to a family or a group. When a couple gets out of balance in either direction there is a problem.
What happens if there is not enough 'we' in our relationship? The result may be a case of emotional divorce. Two people can end up isolated and alone in an empty shell marriage where they do not share personalfeelings and experiences. Whe the seperateness force is overriding an i-don't need-you attitude may be expressed by one or both partners - a stance that is a far cry from truely autonomous position. There may be little fighting in the relationship but little closeness as well.
What happens if there is not enough "I" in our relationship? Here we sacrifice our clear and seperate identity and our sense of responsibility for and control over our own life. When the togetherness force is overriding a lt of energy goes into trying to 'be for' the other person, and trying to make the other person think or behave differently. Instead of taking responsibility for our own selves, we tend to feel responsible for the emotional well being of the other person and hold the other person responsible for ours. When this reversal of individual responsibility is set in motion, each partner may become very emotionally reactive to what the other says and does, and there may be a lot of fighting and blaming as in barbara's case.
Another outcome of excessive togetherness is a pseudo -harmonious 'we' where there is little overt conflict because a submissive spouse accepts the reality of the dominant spouse or both may behave as if they share a common brain and bloodline. The urge to merge may be universal, but when acted out in extreme forms these fusion relationships place us in terribly vulnerable positions. If two people become one, a seperation can feel like a psychological or a physical death. We may have nothing - not even a self to fall back on - when an important relationship ends.
We all need to have both an "I" and a "we" that nourish and gives meaning to each other. There is no formula for the right' amount of seperateness and togetherness for all couples or even for the same couple over time. Each member of a couple is constantly monitoring the balance of these two forces, automatically and unconsciously making moves to restore more seperateness (when anxiety about fusion sets in) or more togetherness (when anxiety about unrelatedness sets in). The balance of these tow forces is constantly in motion in every couple. One common solution or division of albout that couples unconsciously arrange is that the woman will express the wish for togetherness; the man, the wish for seperateness.
If we are chronically angry or bitter in a particular relationship that may be a message to clarify andstrengthen the "I" a bit more. We must re-examine our own selves with a view toward discovering what we think, feel and want, and what we need to do differently in our lives. The more we carve out a clear and seperate "I", the more we can experience and enjoy both intimacy and aloneness. Our intimacy need not be sameness or oneness or loss of self; our aloneness and seperateness need not be distance and isolation.
Why is strengthening the 'I' such a difficult task? There are many factors but if we keep a narrow focus on the here and now, barbara's situation illustrates howscary it can be to move to a higher level of clarity and assertiveness. barbara could not give up her old ways and try out something new without experiencing an anxiety arousing feeling or seperateness and without making waves in her marriage.

The dance of anger - Harriet Lerner (harper Collins)

[fibiray]

Clarity and the fear of loss


If barbara had a clearer "I" to begin with she would not define her problem as 'my husband won't lete go to the w/shop.' Instead she might say something like the following to herself: 'my problem is this; if I cancel the w/shop I will feel bitter and resentful. If I go to the w/shop my husband will feel bitter and resentful. Which do I choose? After some thought, she might decide that the w/shop was not that important or that the timing just wasn't right for her to make waves in her marriage. Or she might conclude that the w/shop was a non- negotiable issue on which she would not compromise. In this case, she might think about how to present her decision to her husband in a way that would minimise the power struggle. Or she might simply inform him that she was going. Later, when things were calm, she might initiate a discussion about decision making in the marriage and explain that while she was interested in his opinions, she was ultimately in charge of making her own decisions.
What stopped barbara from achieving this kind of clarity? Why would any of us end up as chronic fighters and complainers rather than identify our problems and choices and clarify our position? No, Women do not gain a secret masochistic gratification from being in the victimised one down position. Quite to the contrary the woman who sits at the bottom of a seesaw marriage accumulates a great amount of rage, which is in direct proportion to the degree of her submission and scarifice.
The dilemma is that we may unconcsciously be convinced that our important relationships can survive only if we continue to remain one down. To do better - to become clearer, to act stronger, to be more seperate, to take action on our own behalf - may be unconsciously equated with a destructive act that will diminish and threaten our partner, who might then retaliate or leave. Sometimes to develop a stronger "I" is to come to terms with our deep seated wish to leave an unsatisfactory marriage and this possibly may be no less frightening than the fear of being left.
Perhaps barbara is not ready to face the risk of putting her husband and herself to the test of whether change is possible. She may already be convinced that the relationship cannot tolerate much change. She may be caught between a rock and a hard place: neither is she ready to say to herself, I am choosing to stay in this unhappy marraige with a man who is not going to change, nor can she clarigy a bottom line and say, if these things do not change, i will leave. Or perhaps barbara is not yet ready to face anxiety or the funny depression that often hits us when we take a clearer and more seperate stance in a meaningful relationship. fighting and blaming is sometimes a way both to protest and to protect the status quo when we are not quite ready to make a move in one direction or another.

The dance of anger - Harriet Lerner (harper Collins)

[fibiray]

Counter moves and change back reactions


I do not wish to convey the bleak impression that we must stay put on the bottom of the seesaw lest our partner, as well as our relationship, come tumbling down. In some cases this may happen as a consequence of our change and growth. But more frequently, and depending on how we proceed, the other person will grow along with us and our emotional ties will ultimately be strengthened. We can learn to strengthen our own selves in a way that will maximise the chances that we will enhance rather than threaten our relationships. Making change however, never occurs easily and smoothly.
We meet with a countermove or change back reaction from the other person whenever we begin to give up the old ways of silence, vagueness or ineffective fighting and begin to make clear statements about the needs, wants, beliefs and priorities of the self. In fact, Murray Bowen the originator of the Bowen Family Systems Theory emphasises the fact that in all families there is a powerful opposition to one member defining a more independant self. According to Bowen, the opposition invariably goes in successive steps:
1. "you're wrong," with volumes of reasons to support this
2. "change back and we will accept you."
3. "If you don't change back, these are the consequences," which are then listed.

What are some common countermoves? We may be accused of coldness, disloyalty, selfishness or disregard for others. (How could you upset your mother by saying that to her?)
We may recieve verbal or non verbal threats that the other person will withdraw or terminate the relationship. Countermoves take any number of forms. For example, a person may have an asthma attack or even a stroke.
Countermoves are the other person's unconscious attempt to restore the relationship to it's prior balance or equilibrium, when anxiety about seperateness and change gets too high. Other people do not make countermoves simply because they are dominating, controlling or chauvanisitic. They may or may not be these things, but that is almost beside the point. Countermoves are an expression of anxiety, as well as of closeness and attachment.
Our job is to keep clear about our own position in the face of a countermove - not to prevent itfrom happening orto tell the other person that he or she should not be reacting that way. Most of us want the impossible. We want to control not only our own decisions and choices but also the other person's reactions to them. We not only want to make a change, we want the other person to like the change that we make. We want to move ahead to a higher level of assertiveness and clarity and then recieve praise and reinforcement from those very people who have chosen us for our old familiar ways.
Countermoves aside, our own resistance to change is just as formidable a force. Barabara's position in her marriage, for example, may have roots in patterns that go back for many generations. Barbara's mother and other women relatives who came before her may have assumed a de-selfed psotion in marriage or may have paired up with a de-selfed husbands. There may not be a tradition in barbara's family for marriages in which both partners can be clear and competent in making decisions about their own lives and negotiating differences. All of us are deeply affected by the patterns and traditions of past generations even if - and especially if - we are not consciously aware of them. Like many women barbara may feel guilty if she strives to have for herself what her own mother could not. Deep in her unconscious mind, barbara may view her attempt at self assertion as an act of disloyalty - a betrayal not only of her husband but also of generations of women in her family. If this is the case, she will unconsciously resist the changes that she seeks.
To complicate matters further, unresolved issues from our past inevitably surface in our current relationships. If barbara is stuck in a pattern of chronic marital fighting and blaming, that may be a sign that she has not negotiated her seperateness and independances within her first family and that she needs to do some work here. How well is barbara able to take firm position on important issues with members of her first family? Is she able to make clear and direct statements of her own thoughts and feelings? Is she able to be who she is and not what other family members want or expect her to be? If barbara is having difficulty staing in emotional contact with living members of her first family and defining a clear and seperate "I within this context, she may have difficulty doing the same in her marriage. As a psychotherapist I often help women to clarify and to change their relationships with siblings, parents and grandparents so that underground family conflicts and patterns will not be replayed - nor buried anger and anxieties pop up - in another close relationship making for a painful degree of reactivity to others.

The dance of anger - Harriet Lerner (harpercollins)

[fibiray]

Where are we?

Barbara's phone call provided us with an excellent example of ineffective fighting that ensures non-change, because she did two things that we all do when we are stuck and spinning our wheels: first, she fought about a false issue. Second she put her energy into trying to change nother person.

Pseudo Issues

Barbara and her husband probably put a great deal of energy into fighting about the value of the w/shop, which is like most things in life, a matter of personal opinion. More to the point, it's a pseudo issue. It has nothing to do with barbara's real problem which concerns her struggle between her wish to make responsible decisions for her own life and her wish to preserve togetherness in her marriage and protect the status quo.
All couple fight over psuedo issues some of the time, and often with great intensity. I will never forget the very first couple I saw in marital therapy. There in my office they sat, quarraling bitterly over whether they would eat their dinner that evening at McDonald's or Long John silver's. Each of these intelligent people put forth the most compelling arguments regarding the relative merits of hamburger or fish, and neither would give an inch. Being new at marital therapy, I was not quite certain how to be helpful to this couple, but I did know one thing for sure: the impassioned arguement I was witnessing between two people who were obviously in a great deal of pain had nothing to do with the repsective value of burgers and fish.
Identifying the real issues is no easy matter. It is particularly difficult among family members, because whe two adults have a conflict they often bring in a third party (perhaps a child or an in law) to form a triangle, which then makes it even harder for the two people involved to odentify and work out their problem. For example, a wife says to her husband "I am terribly angry about the way you ignore our son." I feel like he's growing up without a father." The real issue not addressed is "I feel ignored and I am angry that you do not spend more time with me.
A husband says to his wife, who is considering a new job "the children need you at home. I support your working but I do not like to see the kids and the household neglected." The real issue not addressed is: "I am scared and worried about you making this change." I am not sure how your career will affect our relationship and your enthusiasm about my own job"
A wife says to her husband "your mother is driving me crazy." She's intrusive and controlling and she treats you like you're her husband and little boy all wrapped up in one." The real issue not addressed is: I wish you could be more assertive with your mother and set some limits. sometimes I wonder whether your primary committment is to me or to her.
When we learn about triangles we will see that it is difficult to sort out not only what we are angry about but also whom we are angry at.

The dance of anger - Harreity Lerner (harpercollins)

[fibiray]

Trying to change him


Barbara, like most of us was putting her anger energy into trying to change the other person. She was trying to change her husband's thoughts and feelings about the w/shop and his reactions to her going. She wanted him to approved of the w/shop and she wanted him to want her to go. In short, she wanted him to think and feel about the w/shop as she did. Of course most of us sceretly believe that we have the corner on 'truth' and that this would be a much better world if everyone else believed and reacted exactly as we do. But one of the hallmarks of emotional maturity is torecognise the validity of multiple realities and to understand that people think, feel and react differently. Often we behave as if closeness means sameness. Married couples and family members are especially prone to behave as if there is one reality that should be agreed upon by all.
It isextremely difficult to learn with our hearts as well as our heads, that we have a right to everything we think and feel - and so does everyone else. It is our job tostate our thoughts and feelings clearly and to make responsible decisions that are congruent with our values and beliefs. It is not our job to make another person think and feel the way we do or the way we want them to. If we try, we can end up in a relationship in which a lot of personal pain and emotional intensity are being expended and nothing is changing.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to change someone else. The problem is that it usually doesnt work. No matter how skilled we become in dealing with our anger, we cannot ensure that another person will do what we want him or her to orsee things our way, nor are we guaranteed that justice will prevail. We are able to move away from ineffective fighting only when we give up the fantasy that we can change or control another person. It is only then that we can reclaim the power that is truely ours - the power to change our own selves and take a new and different action on our own behalf.

The dance of anger - Harriet Lerner (harpercollins)

[fibiray]

Circular dance in couples - When getting angry is getting nowhere


Six months after the birth of my first son, I was vacationing with my family in Berkley, California. Browsing through a secondhand bookstore, I came upon a volume by a foremost expert in child development. My heart sank slightly as I noted that my baby was not doing the things that the book said were appropriate for his age. "My god" I thought to myself, "my child is slow." I flashed back on the complications that had characterised my pregnancy and I froze. Was something wrong with my baby?
when I saw my husband Steve, later in the day, I anxiously told him my fears. He responded with uncharacteristic insensitivity. "Forget it," he said matter of factly. "Babies develop at different rates. He's fine." His response (which I heard as an attempt to silence me) only upset me further. I reacted by trying to prove my point. I told him in detail what the book said, and I reminded him of the problems I had experienced throughout the pregnancy. He accused me of exaggerating the problem and or worrying excessively. Nothing was wrong. I accused him of denying and minimising the ptorblem. Something might be wrong. He reminded me coldly that my mother was a 'worrier' and that, clearly, I was following in her footsteps. I reminded him agrily that worrying was not permitted in his family, since problems were not to be noticed. and then followed more of the same.
We repeated this same fight, in it's same form, countless times over the next six months as our son continued even more conspicously not to do what the book said he should be doing. The psychologist who tested him at nine months (at my initiation) said that he was, in fact quite slow in certain areas but that it was too early to know what this meant. She suggested that we wait a while and then consult with a pediatric neurologist if we were still concerned.
Steve and I became even more rigidly polarised in our fights, and we fought with increasing frequency. Like robots, we took the same repetitive positions, and the sequence unfolded as neatly as cloackwork. The more I expressed worry and concern, the more Steve distanced and minimised, the more I exaggerated my position. This sequence would escalate until it finally became intolerable, at which point each of us would angrily point the finger at the other for 'starting it.'
We were stuck. Our years of psychological training and intellectual sophistication went down the drain. It was clear enough that what each of us was doing only provoked a more vehement stance in the other. Yet somehow, neither Steve nor I was able to do something different ourselves.
"Your babi is fine," a top pediatric neurologist in Kansas reported blandly. Our son was almost a year old. He has an atypical development pattern. There are certain babies who don't do much of anything until they walk. Sure enough our son began to walk (right on schedule) without having crawled, scooted or in any way moved about preceding this. And so ended our chronic repetitive fights.
Later we were able to recognise the unconscious benefits we got by maintaining these fights. Fighting with each other helped both of us to worry a little less about our son, and deflected our attention from other concerns we had about becoming new parents. But what was most impressive at the time was how irrevocably stuck we were. We both behaved as if there was only one 'right' way to respond to a stressful situation in the family, and we engaged in a dance in which we were trying to get the other person to change steps while we would not change our own. The outcome was that nothing changed at all.


The dance of anger - Harriet Lerner (harpercollins)

[fibiray]

Getting stuck - getting unstuck


How do couples get stuck? The inability to express anger is not always at the heart of the problem. Many women like myself, get angry with ease and have no difficulty showing it. Instead the problem is that getting angry is getting nowhere, or even making things worse.
If what we are doing with our anger is not achieving the desired result, it would seem logical to try something different. In my case, I could have changed my behaviour with Steve in a number of ways. Surely, it was clear to me that my anxious expressions of worry only provoked his denial, which then provoked more worry on my part. For example, I might have taken my worry to a good friend for several weeks and stopped expressing it to Steve. Perhaps then Steve would have had the opportunity to experience his own worry. Or, I might have approached Steve at a time where we were close, and shared with him that I was worrying a lot about our baby and that I hoped for his help and support as I struggled with this. Such an approach would have been quite different from my usual behaviour which involved speaking out at the very height of my anxiety and then implying that Steve was at fault for not reacting the same way as I. Steve, too might easily have broken the pattern of our fights by doing something different himself. For example, he might have initiated a talk in which e expressed concern for our son.
We all recognise intellectually that repeating our ineffective efforts achieves nothing and can even make things worse. Yet oddly enough. most of us continue to do more of the same, especially under stress. For example, a wife who lectures her husband about his failure to stay on his diet increases the intensity or frequency of her lectures when he overeats. A woman whose lover becomes cooler when she agrily presses him to express feelings presses on even harder, her problem being not that she is unable to get angry but that she's doing something with her anger that isn't working and yet keeps doing it.
Even rats in a maze learn to vary their behaviour if they keep hitting a dead end. Why in the world, then do we behave less intelligently then laboratory animals? The answer, by now is obvious. Repeating the same old fights protets us from the anxieties we are bound to experience when we make change. Ineffective fighting allows us to stop the clock when our efforts to achieve greater clarity become too threatening. Sometimes staying stuck is what we need to do until the time comes when we are confident that it is safe to get unstuck.
Sometimes however, even when we are ready to risk change, we still keep participating in the same old familiar fights that go nowhere. Human nature is such that when we are angry, we tend to become so emotionally reactive to what the other person is doing to us that we lose our ability to observe our own part in the interaction. Self observation is not all the same as self blame, at which some women are experts. Rather, self observation is the process of seeing the interaction of ourselves and others and recognising that the ways of other people behave with us has something to do with the way we behave with them. We cannot make another person be different, but when we do something different ourselves, the old dance can no longer continue as usual.
The story of Sandra and Larry, a couple who sought my help, is a story about getting unstuck. While the content of their struggles may or may not hit home, the form of th dance they do together is almost universal. For this couple, like many, was caught in a circular dance in which the behaviour of each served to maintain and provoke that of the other. Once we are part of an established twosome - married or unmarried we easily become caught in such a dane. When this happens, the more each person tries to change things, the more things stay the same.

the dance of anger - Harriet Lerner (harpercollins)

[Bruce T.]

Hmmm ... out of curiosity (which could kill this cat) I signed onto this thread to see what it's all about.

I've been divorced since '96. I have not had a woman in my life "in reality" since. Sorry, but Ol' Unkle Ignernt has nothing to offer here.

Why did I even post? Oh yeah, "Ol' Unkle Ignernt".

Outta y'all's way!

-b

[fibiray]

SANDRA AND LARRY

Well how do each of you see the problem in your marriage? I inquired. It was my first meeting with sandra and larry, who had requested marital therapy at sandra's initiative. My eyes fell first on larry and then on sandra, who quickly picked up the invitation to speak. She turned her body in my direction and cupped her hands against her face. Like blinders, they blocked larry from her view. With unvelied anger in her voice, sandra listed her complaints. It was evident that she had told her story before. It was also evident that she thought the problem was her husband.
First of all, hes a workaholic, she began. He neglects the kids and me. I don't think he knows how to relate to us anymore. He's a stranger in his own family. Sandra paused for a moment, drew a deep breath, and continued. He acts like he expects me to run the house and eal with the kids all by myself, and then when something goes wrong, he tells me Im crazy to be reacting so emotionally. He's not available and he never expresses his feeling about things that should worry him.
When Larry comes home, and youre upset about something at home, how do you ask for his support and help? I asked.
I tell him that I'm really upset, that Im worried about our money situation, and that Jeff is sick, and that I had to miss my class and that Im going nuts with the baby today. But he just looks at me and crtiticises me that the dinner isn't ready, or tells me that I'm overreacting. He always says, why do you get so **** emotional about everything? he makes me want to scream.
Sandra fell silent and Larry said nothing. After several minutes, sandra continued, her anger now laced with tears. I'm tired of being at the bottom of his list of priorities. He hardly ever takes the initiative to relate to me and he neglects the kids too. And then, when he does decide that he want to be a father, he just takes over like he's the only one in charge.
For example, I asked.
For example, he goes out and buys Lori our older daughter, this expensive dressing table that she's had her eye on, and he doesn't even consult me! He just tells me after the fact. Sandra is now glaring at Larry who refuses to meet her eyes.
When Larry does something that you disapporve of, like the dressing table incident, how do you let him know?'
It's impossible, sandra said emphatically. It's simply impossible.
What is impossible? I persisted.
Talking to him! confronting him! He doesn't talk about feelings. He doesn't know how to discuss things. He just doesnt respond. He clams up and wants to be left alone. He doesn;t even know how to fight. Either he talks in this superlogical manner or he refuses to talk at all. He'd rather read a book or turn on the tv.
Okay, I said, I think I understand how you see the problem. It was Larrys turn now: How do you define the problem in your marriage larry?
Larry proceeded to speak in a controlled and deliberate voice that almost masked the fact that he was as angry as his wife: Sandra isn't supportive enough, she doesn't give enough and she's always on my back. I think that's the main problem. Larry fell silent, as if he was finished for the day.
In what ways does Sandra fail to support you or give to you? Can you share a specific example?
Well it's hard to say. She cuts me down a lot for one thing. Or I walk in the door as 6pm and I'm tired and wanting some peace and quiet, and she just rattles on about the kids problems or her problems, or she just complains about one thing or another. Or if I sit down to relax for five minutes, she's on my back to discuss some earthshaking matter - like the garbage disposal is broken. Larry was angry, but he managed to sound as if he was discussing the dow jones average.
Are you saying that you need some space? I asked.
Not exactly, replied Larry. Im saying that sandra is very overreactive. She's very over emotional. she creates problems where they don't exist. Everything is a major case. And yes, I suppose I am saying that I need more space.
What about the kids? do you - I had not finished my question when larry interrupted:
Sandra is a very overinvolved mother, he explained carefully, as if he were describing a patient at a clinical conference. She worries excessively about the children. She inherited it from her mother. And if you could meet her mother, you would understand.
Do you worryabout the kids? I inquired.
Only when there's something to worry about. For sandra it seems to be a full time job.

Although one would have guessed it from this first session, sandra and larry were deeply committed to each other. At our initial meeting, however, they appeared to share only one thing in common - blaming. Like may couples, each spouse saw the locus of his or her marital difficulties as existing entirely within the other person, and each had the same unstated goal for marital therapy - that the other would be fixed up and straightened out.
Lets take a closer look at the details of sandra and larry's story for there is much to be learned. Though couples differ merkedly in how they present themselves, the ways in which they get stuck are very much the same.

the dance of anger - harriet lerner (harpercollins)

[fibiray]

He just doesn't respond!
She's very overemotional!

sound familiar? Sandra and Larry's central complaints about each other will ring a bell for many couples. His unfeelingness, unavailability and distance is a major source of her anger: "My husband withdraws from confrontation and cannot share his real feelings." "My husband is like a machine." "My husband refuses to talk about things." "My husband is more invested in his work than in his family." And it is no coincidence that men have a reciprocal complaint: "My wife is much too reactive." "She gets irritational much too easily." "I wish she would back off and stop nagging and *****ing." "My wife wants to talk everything to death."
As typically happens, the very qualities that each partner complains of in the other are those that attracted them to each other to begin with. Sandra for example, had been drawn to larry's orderly evern keeled temprament, just as he had admired her capacity to be emotional and spontenous. Her reactive feeling oriented approach to the world balanced his distant, logical reserve - and vice a versa. Opposites attract - right?
Opposites do attract, but they do not always live happily ever after. On one hand, it is reassuring to live with someone who will express parts of one's own self that one is afraid to acknowledge; yet the arrangement has its inevitable costs: The woman who is expressing feelings not only for herself but also for her husband will indeed end up behaving 'hysterically' and irrationally. The man who relies on his wife to do the feeling work for him will increasingly lose touch with this important part of himself, and when the time comes that he needs to draw upon his emotional resources, he may find that nobodys at home.
In the majority of couples men sit on the bottom of the seesaw when it comes to emotional competence. We all know about the man who can tie good knots on packages and fix things that break, yet fails to notice that his wife is depressed. He may have little emotional relatedness to his own family and lack even one close friend with whom honest disclosure takes place. This is the masculinity that our society breeds - the male who feels at home in the world of things and abstracts but who has little empathic connection to others, little attunement to his own internal world, and little willingness or capacity to hang in when a relationship becomes conflicted and stressful. In the traditional division of labour, men are encouraged to develop one kind of intelligence, but they fall short of another that is equally important. The majority underfunctioning is emotional competence, and their underfunctioning is closely related to women's overfunctioning in this area. It is not by accident that the hysterical overemotional female ends up under the same roof as the unemotional, distant male.
The marital seesaw is hard to balance. When couples do try to balance it, especially under stress, their solutions often exaberate the problem. The emotional feeling oriented wife who gets on her husband's back to open up and express feelings will find that he becomes cooler and even less available. The cool intellectual husband who tries calmly to use logic to quiet his overemotional wife will find that she become even more agitiated. True to stereotype, each partner continues to do the same old things while trying to change the other. The solution for righting the balance become the problem.

The dance of anger - Hrriet Lerner (harpercollins)

[fibiray]

DOING THE FEELING WORK FOR LARRY

Sandra had long been furious at larry's lack of reactivity without realising her own part in the circular dange. She failed to recognise that she was so skilled and comfortable in expressing feeling that she was doing the job for the tow of them, thus protecting her husband from feeling what he would otherwise feel. Doing the feeling work like cleaning up, has long been defined as 'women's work, and lots of women are good at it. As with cleaning up, men will not begin to do their share until women no longer do it for them.
Although it was not her conscious intent, sandra helped larry to maintain his underemotional stance by expressing more than her share of emotionality. the unconscious contract for this couple was that sandra would be the emotional reactor and larry the rational planner. And so, sandra reacted for larry. she did so in response not only to family stresses that concerned them both but also to problems that were really larry's to struggle with. Here are two examples of how sandra protected larry by doing the feeling work for him:

AN INJUSTICE ON THE JOB

One evening when larry returned from work, he told sandra that a co-worker had gotten credit for an idea that was originally his. As he began to outline the details of the incident, sandra became upset and expressed her strong anger at the injustice. As her emotional involvement in the incident increased she noticed that larry was becoming cooler and more removed. "It's your life, you know! Don't you have any feelings about it?" Of course larry had feelings about it. It was his career and the injustice had been done to him. However, his style of reacting as well as his tempo and timing was different from his wife's. Also larry was using sandra to react for him. Her quick outburst actually took him off the hook. He did not have to feel upset about the incident because she was doing all the work. The more emotiona sandra displayed the less larry felt within himself.
Sandra was consciously angry and frustrated at larry's apparent lack of feelings about the incident, yet she was unconsciously helping him to maintain his strong, cool, masculine position. By criticising him for not showing feelings and demonstrating the appropriate degree of distress, she was applying a solution that only reinforced the very problem she complained of. Sandra could not make larry react differently. However, she could do something different herself. When sandra stopped doing the feeling work for larry, the circular dance was broken.
It was not easy for sandra to change her behaviour, but eventually she did make an important shift: sometimes later and quietly. She did not express feelings that appropriately belonged to larry, nor did she off solutions to a problem that was not hers. Given sufficient time and space around him, larry did, indeed begin to react to his own problem and struggle with his own dilemma. In fact he became depressed. But while this was the very reaction sandra had overtly sought and wished for (that cool bastard doesn't react to anything) she was uncomfortable seeing her husband vulnerable and struggling. She realised to her surprise, that part of her wanted larry to maintain the role of the cool strong unruffled partner.

the dance of anger - harriet lerner (harper collins)

[fibiray]

A PROBLEM WITH LARRY'S PARENTS

Sandra also protected larry from recognising his anger at his own parents. she did this by criticising them and fuming at them for him. Larry, then, was left with the simpler job of coming to their defenses.
This pattern began at the time of the birth of their first child. Larry's parents, who were quite wealthy, were spending the year in paris and did not acknowledge their new grandaughter with enthusiasm or show interest in seeing her. Sandra reacted with outrage, declaring to larry that they were cold and selfish people who thought only of themselves. Years later she still spoke heartedly about their neglectful attitude, although always to larry and never to his parents.
What did larry do? He made excuses for his parents and found logical reason for thei behaviour, which only made sandra angrier. It was nother circular dance in which the behaviour of each provoked the other into doing mor eof the same. the more sandra criticised her in laws to larry, the more larry came to their defense; the more openly critical sandra became.
Deep down, of course, larry was considerably more affected than sandra by his parents behaviour. They were, after all, his parents and he was their son. but because of sandra's readiness to do the feeling work for him, larry was in touch only with his loyalty to his parents who were under his wife's attack.
Sandra's focus on larry's behaviour with his parent as opposed to her own relationship with her in laws, complicated the problem and the solution. In fact, sandra's focus on her husband obscured her own need to change matters.
Larry's parents who travelled a great deal, visited once a year. These visits were initiated by larry's father, who would write a letter informing the couple when they would arrive and for how long they would stay. Being told rather than asked annoyed sandra no end. she then put pressure on larry to confront his parents regarding this matter and he would refuse. In the face of sandra's anger and criticisms, arguments as to why his parents needed to schedule visits as they did.
Sandra felt helpless and for good reason: first she was trying to make larry do something and it wasnt working. Second she was doing the feeling work for him. Down the road a bit, sandra changed both of these patterns.
At some point sandra recognised that if the behaviour of larry's parents upset her, it was he job to deal with this herself. So she did. In a letter that was neither attacking nor blaming, sandra explained to her in law that it was important to her to be consulted in arranging a mutually agreeable time for their visits. She stated her position warmly but with clarity and directness, and she did not back down in the face of their initial defensiveness. Much to her surprise, her long pent up anger at her in laws began to dissipate as she became more confident that she could speak effectively to issues that were not to her liking. Also to her surprise, larry's parents in the end, responded warmly and affirmatively, thanking sandra for her straightforwardness. This was the first step in sandra's taking care of her own business with her in laws, and in the process, opening up a more direct person to person relationship with each of them.
Larry threatened by the new assertiveness that his wife was expressing, initially protested the very idea that she would write such a letter. In his typical style, he presented her with a dozen intellectual arguments to back his disapproval. Sandra however, was clear in her resolve to change things and resist fighting back, since her experience had taught her that such arguments led nowhwere. Instead she explained to larry that although she appreciated his point of view, she needed to make her own decisions about how, when and if she would deal with issues that were important to her.
When larry observed that sandra was continuing to address issues directly with his parents without criticising or attacking them, a predictable next step occured: His own unresovled issues with his mother and father surfaced full force. Sandra no longer complaining to larry about his parents but managing her own business with them. In response to this, larry began to geel an internal pressure to take care of his own.
When a woman vents her anger ineffectively (like sandra complaining to larry about his parents, which surely wasn't going to change anything) or expresses it in an over emotional style, she does not threaten her man. If anything, she helps him to maintain his masculine cool, while she herself is percieved as infantile or irrational. When a woman clarifies the issues and uses her anger to move toward something new and different, then change occurs. If she stops overfunctionaing for other and starts acting for herself, her underfunctioning man is likely to acknowledge and deal with his own anxieities.

The dance of anger - harriet Lerner (harper collins)

[fibiray]

THE BLAMING GAME

Sandra and larry had expended enormous amounts of energy blaming each other for their endless fights. Like many of us, their method of attributing blame was to look for the one who started it. The search fro a beginning of a sequence is a common blaming game in couples.
consider, for example, the interaction between a nagging wife and a distant, withdrawing husband. The more he withdraws, the more she nags, and the more she nags, the more he withdraws and so on..... so, who is to blame?
I know!" says one abserver of this sequence. "She is to blame. First she nags him and gets on his case for all kinds of things, and then the poor guy withdraws."
"No!" says a second observer, "you have it all wrong. He is! First her buries himself in his work and ignores his family, and then his wife goes after him."
This is the who-started-it game - the search for a beginning of a sequence where the aim is to proclaim which person is to blame for the behaviour of both. But we know that this interaction is really a circular dance in which the behaviour of one partner maintains and provokes the behaviour of the other. The circular dance has no beginning and no end. In the final analysis, it matters little who started it. The question of greater significance is: "how to break out of it."
A good way to make this break is to recognise the part we play in maintaining and provoking the other person's behaviour. Even if we are convinced that the other person is 97% to blame, we are still in control of changing our own 3%. so the central question becomes: "How can I change my steps in the circular dance?"
This is not to say that we don't have good reason to be furious with the other person. Nor is it to say that our current sex roles and gender arrangements, which breed these sorts of dances, are not at fault - they are. Rather, it is simply to say that we don't have the power to change another person who does not want to change, and our attempts to do so may actually protect him or her from change. This is the paradox of the circular dances in which we all participate.

The dance of anger - harriet lerner (harper collins)

[fibiray]

EMOTIONAL PURSUER - EMOTIONAL DISTANCER A VERY OLD DANCE

Emotional pursuers are persons who reduce their anxiety by sharing feelings and seeking close emotional contact. Emotional distancers are person who reduce their anxiety by intellectualising and withdrawing. As with sandra and larry, it is most often the woman who is the emotional pursuer and the man who is the emotional distancer.
When the waters are calm, the pursuer and the distancer may seem like the perfect complementary couple. She is spontenous, lively and emotionally responsive. He is reserved, calm and logical. When the waters are rough, however, each exaggerates his or her own style, and that's where the trouble begins.
What happens when the inevitable stresses of life hit this couple? It may be an illness, a child in difficulty, a financial worry or possibly career move. No matter what the content of the cproblem, these two styles of responding suddenly seem at odds. She reacts quickly, seeking direct contact and refuge in togetherness. She shares her feelings and wants him to do the same. He reacts very logivally and rationally in a manner that is not acceptable to her. So, she pursues harder wanting to know more of what he is thinking and feeling, and he distances further. The more he distances, the more she pursues, and the more she pursues, the more he distances. She accuses him of being cold, unresponsive, and inhuman. He accuses her of being pushy, hysterical and controlling.
What is the common outcome of this classic scenariou? After this escalating dance of pursuit and withdrawal proceeds for some time, the woman goes into what therapists call 'reactive distance.' Feeling rejected and fed up, she at last proceeds to go about her own business. The man now has even more space than he is comfortable with, and in time he moves closer to her in the hope of making contact. But its too late. "Where were you when I needed you!" she says angrily. At this point, distancer and pursuer might even reverse their roles for a while.
Emotional pursuers protect emotional distancers. By doing the work of expressing the neediness, clingingness, and wish for closeness for both partners, pursuers make it possible for distancers to avoid confronting their own dependency wishes and insecurities. As long as one person is pursuing, the other had the luxury of experiencing a coold independene and a need for space. It is hardly surprising, considering her upbringing that the woman is usually, though by no means always, the pursuer. It is another example of doing the feeling work for men. When a pursuer learns to back off and put her energies into her own life - especially if she can do it with dignity and without hostility -the distancer is more likely to recognise his own needs for contact and closeness ..... and begin to pursue. But beware this is no easy task. Most women who are emotional pursuers go off into a cold or angry "reactive distance," which only temporarily reverses the persuit cycle or has little effect at all.

the dance of anger - harriet Lerner (harper collins)

[fibiray]

BREAKING THE PURSUIT CYCLE

Sandra and larry were caught in an escalating cycle of pursuit and distance for many years prior to their seeking help. Since the birth of their first child, larry wasdecreasing his emotional involvement with sandra as he increased the energy he put into work andhobbgies. Sandra alternated between active pursuit, angry criticism, and a cold, bitter withdrawal. Sadly, but predictably, their relationship had gone bad to worse.
One particular friday night, almost a year following our first meeting, sandra broke the pursuit cycle. It was her increased sense of personal responsibility to provide for her own needs, as well as her growig awareness that she could not change her husband, that allowed her to dosomething new and different. And something new and different is exactly what sandra did.
This friday evening began like all others. The children were in bed, and larry was shuffling through his briefcase about to pull out a couple hours work. Sandra came and sat down next to him on the couch. Larry bristled, expecting the usual attack, but it did not come. Instead, sandra began to speak warmly and with assurance:
"Larrry I feel like I own you an apology. Ive been on your back for a long time. I realise that I have been wanting you to provide me with something that really I need to provide for myself. Perhaps part of the problem is that you have family and work and I have only you and the kids. It's my problem and I recognise that I need to do something about it."
"Oh, muttered larry, with somewhat unsettled look on his face. He seemed at an uncharacteristic loss for words. "well thats nice...."
The very next night, sandra asked larry if he would mind putting the children to bed himself on tuesday and friday because she was plannign to go out. Larry protested that he had too much work. Instead of arguing, sandra called the sitter to come in and help on thosevenings. On tuesday night sandra joined a yoga class that met weekly. On friday night she went to the movies with a friend and then out for a glass of wine. She did not pursue larry in any way, nor did she distance from him or withdraw coldly. If anything, she was warmer to him than usual, although clearly directing much of her energy toward her own interests and scheduling.
After 3 weeks of this, larr who had wanted nothing more than to be left alone, began to get nervous. Much to his surprise, he became quite uncomfortable when his wife's bleep was off his radar screen. At first he tried to provoke her into fighting by attempting to control what she could or could not do with her evenings. Without retaliating, sandra explained to larry that she was a social person with social needs and that she was no longer able t neglect this important part of her life. Her warm firmnesson this issue communicated clearly to larry that she was acting for herself and not against him.
Next larry, started to pursue her. Instead of bringing his work home, he suggested they use the sitter to go out together - something they almost never did on a week night. As larry increasingly began to experience and express his own dependency and insecurity, a funny thing happened: Sandra for the first time got in touch with her own wish to be left alone. For a while they simply reversed their rolesas pursuer and distancer until finally they got things in balance. And when that occured sandra and larry were able to recovnise that each of them harboured strong dependency wishes as well as a wish to flee when things became too close.
Why was it sandra who finally took the initiative in breaking the circular dance? Sandra was in greater emotional pain thank larry, and her role as the pursuer in the relationship plaed her in a more vulnerable position. When she became convinced that he old ways simply were not working for her, she found the motivation to move differently. Why did she have to take her responsibility to make the change? Simply because no one else was going to do it for her.
Breaking the pursuit cycle did not in itself lead to emotional closeness for sandra and larry; there were important barriers to intimacy that the two of them were left to struggle with. However, sandra and larry could work more successfully on their relationship once they recognised that they shared a common problem. Both of them wished for closeness and also feared it. Before sandra broke the pursuit cycle, larry had the false but comforting fantasy that all of their neediness and wish for closeness was in sandra. Likewise, snadra imagined that all of the avoidance of and flight from intimacy was in larry.
When a pursuer stops pursuing and begin to put her energy back into her own life - without distancing or expressing anger at the other person - the circular dance has been broken. Because this may smack of the old 'hard to get' tactics that women have been taught to play, it may sound inauthentic or manipulative. But continuing the old dance of pursuit or cold withdrawal is not more honest. In fact it only leaves the woman feeling the neeediness and dependency for two people, while her partner can disown these same qualities within himself. Our experience of a relationship becomes more true and balanced as the pursuer can allow herself to acknowledge and express more of her own wish for independence and space and, in turn the distancer can begin to acknowledge more of his dependency and wish for closeness.

The dance of anger _ harriet Lerner (harper collins)

[fibiray]

OVERINVOLVED MOTHER - UNDERINVOLVED FATHER: THE LAST DANCE

Sandra is a very overinvolved mother. She inherited it from her mother. These were larry's words about sandra's mothering during our first meeting. And it was true. Sandra did worry excessively about the children, as her own mother had worried about her. She became upset when her children were upset, and she had difficulty allowing them to handle their own disappointments and deal with their own sadness and anger. She was quick to spot potential 'problems' in her children in a way that actually invited them to give her something to worry about. Larry was correct that sandra was an overinvolved mother. However, he was unaware of his part in provoking and maintaining that circular dance.
Larry's singular pursuit of career goals had left him estranged from his wife and children and lacking in parenting skills. As sandra moved in even closer to fill the empty space left by larry, larry felt more shut out and withdrew further. Whenever his anger about being on the periphery caught up with him, he moved in with a bang! As sandra described in our initial meeting, he then took over in a unilateral way as if he was the only one in charge. Underlying his spopradic displays of paternal dominance was his sadness and anger about his actual position as "odd man out" in the family. And so, sandra and larry were caught in another dance in which the behaviour of each spouse provokes and reinforces sandra's overinvolvement, which provokes larry's underinvolvement ....thus the visous cycle continued, punctuated by larry's occasional displays of dominance, following which their life returned to it's usual pattern.
This dance was very difficult to disrupt, because the entire family was working overtime to keep it going: on the one hand, sandra and larry each demanded that the other change. Larry criticised sandra's overinvolvement with the children as harshly as she criticised his token fathering. Yet, eahc of them also wanted to keep the old dance going. "Please change!" and "change back!" was thedouble message theygave each other. Like most couples, each partner wished for the other's change and growth, yet feared and resisted it.
Sandra for example, complained incessantly about larry's underinvolvement with the children. Yet, when he did make a tentative move closer to the family whe would correct some detail of his parenting, criticise some aspect of his behaviour, or advise him on how to better interact with the children. It was extremely difficult for her to simply stay out and allow him to relate to the children in his own way. Sandra wanted larry to become involved, but she also wanted to maintain her special role as the more dominant and influential parent. If she relinquished that special status her feelings of uselessness threatened to become intolerabley strong, and her discontent with her marriage would be experienced witheven greater intensity. She thus gave larry mixed messages. She encouraged him to be more available to the kids but then, without beingaware of it, undermined his tentative attempts to do so. Larry, in a similar fashion, gave sandra the same "please change" and "change back" messages.
Toward the end of marital therapy, sandra was able to do different steps in this dance too. As she became increasingly invested in fostering her own growth adn development, she became less tightly enmeshed with her children and no longer looked to them to fill up the emptiness she had been experiencing. Sandra's earlier focus on her husband and children had protected her from confronting some difficult questions: what are my priorities right now? Are there interests and skills that I would like todevelop? what are my personal goals over the next several years? As sandra began to put her energy into struggling with these difficult issues, she was better able to allow larry to relate to the children in his own way without correcting him or getting in the middle. As sandra backed off, larry moved in. The children too, snesed that their mother was putting her energy into her own life and no longer needed them to be 'loyal' to her as the 'number one' parent. Thus they became feer to be close with their dad without anxiety and guilt. This was a difficult shift for larry, because he was faced head on with his own worries about being a father and his concerns about his competence in this area.

The Dance of Anger - Harriet Lerner (Harper Collins)

[fibiray]

Boy can I relate to this it is exactly what goes on in my family. I am an overinvolved mother and this stems from having a mother who simply didn't care less about what happened to me. Also I tend to become over involved because for the first 6-10yrs of my son's life I was unavailable because I had been in post natal depression and could respond to the environment around me and then I had all the hospitalisations for various different health problems. thanks for letting me share.

Fi
xxx:15:

[fibiray]

TRYING TO CHANGE HIM

Sandra had spent many years trying to change larry. "If only he would change!" "If only he would be different!" She truely believed that a change in larry would secure her happiness. But the more sandra put her energies into trying to change and control larry, the more things stayed the same. For trying to chage or control another person is a solution that never, never works. And while sandra poured all that effort into trying to change someone she could not change, she failed to exercise the power that was hers - the power to change her own self.
Sandra's realisation that she could not change larry did not mean that she silently swallowed her anger and dissatisfaction. If anything she learned to articulate her reactions to larry with clarity and assurance. She was aware, however, that in response to these statements of her own wishes and preferences, larry would change or not change. And if he did not change, it was sandra's job to decide what she would or would not do from there. This is something more difficult than participating in further fighting that only maintains the status quo.
For example, larry's pattern of leaving household jobs half finished was a real irritant to sandra. The typical old pattern was that sandra would push larry to dinish a task, in response to which he would procrastinate further, which provoked sandra into pushing harder. The circular dance was procrstinate-push..... sandra would continu to try to make larry finish the job despite the likelihood that it would not get done.
As is often the case, sandra's pushing actually helped larry to be more comfortable with his irresponsible behaviour. He would become angry and defensive in the face of her criticisms, which protected him from feeling guilty and concerned about his difficulty completing tasks. Sandra's attempts to change larry only made it easier for him to avoid confronting his own problem.
Now sandra is clear in telling larry that she become upset when the bathroom ceiling remains hald painted and bickets of paint are lying around the house. If larry shows no positive response to her complaint, sandra then puts her energy into determining what she will do or will not do in order to take care of her own needs. She is able to do this when she begins to feel resentful, so that her anger does not build up. Thus she can talk to larry wihtout hostility and let him know that she is needing to do something for herself and not him.
After considering the options open to her, she may choose to say any number of things to larry. It may be 'okay' but I don't like it, but I can live with it. Or 'larry I would rather tou finish what you began, but if you are not able to do so this week, it is bothersome enough to mer that I will do it myself.' I can paint it without becoming angry, so that's okay with me. Obviously there is something sandra can do about the ceiling, for if larry were to disappear from the earth, it is highly unlikely that she would live out the rest of her life with a half painted ceiling. In the old pattern however, sandra put so much effort to trying to change larry that she obscured from herself her own power to act and make choices. And this in the end is the only real power we have.

The dance of anger - Harriet Lerner (Harper collins)

[fibiray]

ANGER AT OUR IMPOSSIBLE MOTHERS - The story of Maggie

Turning theory and good intentions into practice is especially challenging with members of our first family. Our relationships with our parents and siblings are the most influential in our lives and they are never simple. Families tend to establish rigid rules and roles that govern each member is to think, feel and behave and these are not easily challenged or changed. When one individual in a family begins to behave in a new way that does not conform to the old family scripts, anxiety skyrockets and before long everyone is trying to reinstate the old familiar patterns.
Rather than face the strong feelings of anxiety and discomfort that are inevitably evoked when we clarify a new position in an old relationship, we may instead do the very two things with our anger that only serve to block the possibility that change will occur.
First we may 'confront' members of our family by telling them what's wrong with them and how they should think, feel or behave differently. That is, we try to change the other person. this other person typically (and under standably) becomes upset and defensive. We then become frustrated or guilty and allow things to return to the usual pattern. My mother (father, sister, brother) can't change! is our subsequent conclusion.
Second we may cut ourselves off from our parents or siblings emotionally and/ or geographically. Surely, the fastest cure for chronic anger or frustration is simply to leave home, to move across the country (better yet, to a different country), or to find a sympathetic therapist who will "reparent" us. We can keep family visits few and far between or we can keep them polite and superficial. True enough, such distancing does bring short term relief by lowering the anxiety and emotional entensity in these relationships and freeing us of the uncomfortable feelings that may be evoked upon closer emotional contact. The problem is that there is a long term cost. All the unresolved emotional intensity is likely to get played out in another important relationship, such as that with a spouse, a lover, or if we ourselves are prents, a child. No less important is the fact that emotional distancing from our first family prevents us from proceeding calmly and clearly in new relationships. When we learn to move differently in our family and get 'unstuck' in these important relationships, we will function with greater satisfaction in every relationship we are in. And as Maggies story illustrates we can go hoem again. We can learn to do something different with our anger.

The dance of anger - Harriet Lerner (Harper collins)

[fibiray]

THE WAY IT WAS

Maggie a 28yrs old graduate student at a local university, came to see me because of her recurrent migraine headaches and her lack of sexual interest in her husband, Bob. Beginning with our first therapy session however, she maintained an almost single minded focus on her mother. Although maggie lived in Kansas and her mother in California, time and space had healed no wounds.
Maggie had not problem getting in touch with her anger at her mother, and if left to herself, she spoke of little else. From Maggie's description, she and her mother had never gotton along well, nor had their relationship improved when maggie left home and started a family of her own. Maggie's mother and father were divorced 5yrs prior to her starting therapy, shortly after she had married bob and moved away from the west coast. Since that time, maggies and her father had become increasingly distant, while her relationship with her mother had become more intense even though they were physically apart.
Maggie dutifully invited her mother for annual visits, but by the third day maggie would feel frustrated and rage. During her therapy sessions, she would describe the horrors of the particular visit to which she was being subjected. With despair and anger in her voice, she would recite her mother's crime sheet, which was endless. In vivd detail, she would document her mother's unrelenting negativism and intrusiveness. During one visit for example, maggie reported the following events: maggie and bob redecorated their living room; mother hadn't noticed, bob had just learned of his forthcoming promotion; mother didn't comment. Maggie and bob effortfully prepared fancy dinners; mother complained that the food was too rich. To top it all off, mother lectured maggie about her messy kitchen and criticised her management of money. And when maggie announced that she was three months pregnant, mother replied, "how will you deal with a child when you can hardly make time to clean your house?"
About all this, maggie had said nothing, except for a few sarcastic comments and one enormouse blow up to mark the day of her mother's departure. Maggie was furious and she saw therapy as a place where she could safely vent her anger. But that's about all she did. She did not for example, say to her mother,"mom this preganancy means a great deal to bob and me. We're excited about it and although I worry sometimes, I'm confident that we'll that we'll do just fine." Nor did she say "Mother I know that I manage money in a way that's very different from your way. But What I do is working okay for me, just as your way works for you." Instead Maggie tended to keep quiet when she felt unappreciated or put down. She alternated between seething silently, emotionally distancing herself and finally blowing up. None of these reactions was helpful to her.
Obviously it is not necessary or even desireable to personally address every injustice and irritation that come our way. It can be an act of maturity to let something go. But for maggie, not speaking up - and then blowing up - had become the painful rule in her relationship with her mother. Maggie was de-selfing herself by failing to address issues that mattered to her, and as a result she felt angry, frustrated, victimised and depressed.
When I asked maggie about her silences, she provided countless justifications for her failure to speak up. Among them were: I could never say that! My mother can't hear! It would only make things worse! I've tried it a hundred times and it doesn't work!
Sound familiar? When emotional intensity is high in a family, most of us put the entire responsibility for poor communication on the other person. It is one's mother /father/sister/broeth who is deaf, defensive, crazy, hopeless, helpless, fragile or set in their ways. Always, we percieve that it is the other who prevents us from speaking and keeps the relationship from changing. We disown our own part in the interactions we complain of an with it our power to bring about a change.
Maggie acted as if her only options were either to keep quiet or to argue and fight, although she knew from experience that neither worked. Indeed when she did vent her anger, the result left her feeling so frustrated that she would begin yet another cycle of silence and emotional withdrawal.

The dance of Anger - Harriet Lerener (Harpercollins)

[fibiray]

ONE YEAR LATER: GOING TO BATTLE


Amy - Maggie and bob's new baby- was twp months old when maggie's mother made her next visit. Tensions between the two women were already sky high by the time mother's suitcase was unpacked, and only seemed to escalate as the visit progressed. Having a new baby brought out the fighter in maggie and she and her mother were constanftly locking horns, especially on the subject of amy's care.
When maggie decicded to let amy cry herself to sleep, her mother suggested that she be picked up insisting that such neglect might have potentially damaging effects. When maggie nurse her baby on demand, her mother advised her to nurse on a fixed schedule and warned that maggie was spoiling amy by overly long feedings. And so it went.
On this particular visit maggie did not sit still through her mother's lecutures and criticisms. Armed with supporting evidence from physicians, psychologists and child care experts, maggie set out to prove her wrong on every count. She debated her mother constantly. The more thoroughly maggie martialed her eveidence the more tenaciously her mother clung to her own opinions. When finally this sequence reached an intolerable point maggie would angrily accuse her mother of being rigid, controlling and unable to listen. Her mother would then become sullen and withdraw, in response to which maggie retreated into silence. things would settle down for a while and then the fighting would begin again.
Four days into the visit, maggie reported that her nerves were on edge and she was at the tail end of a migraine headache. She once again diagnosed her mtoher as a hopeless case and stated bitterly that she had no option but to retreat to her earlier style of silent suffering and to see her mother as little as possible in the future.

WHAT WENT WRONG?

One problem with maggie's style of fighting with her mother may already be obvious. maggie was trying to chage her mother rather than clearly state her own beliefs and convictions and stand behind them. To attempts to change another person particularly a parent is a self defeating move. Predictably maggie's mother would only cling with greater determination to her own beliefs in the face of her daughter's pressuring her to admit to error. Maggie had yet to learn that she cannot control or change another person's thoughts and feelings. Her attempt to do so in fact provoked the very rigidity in her mother that she found so disturbing.
perhaps the reader can identify a s second problematic aspect of maggie's fight with her mother. Maggie had nto yet identified the true source of her anger. As is often the case, mother and daughter were fighting about a pseudo issue. Arguing about such child rearing practices as feeding amy on schedul or demand, or roacking her to sleep rather than letting her cry it out, only masks the real issue here: maggies independence from her mother.
Maggies intense ractivity to her mother also prevented her from being able to think about her situation in a clear, focused way. Until she can calm down enough to become more relfective, she is unlikely to identify her main problem and decide how she wants to deal with it. Simply giving vent to stored up anger has no particular therapeutic value. such catharsis may indeed offer feelings of relief - especially for the person doing the venting - and the accused party usually survives the verbal onslaught. But this solution can only be tempoprary.

the dance of anger - harriet lerner (harpercollins)

[fibiray]

TAKING STOCK OF THE SITUATION


During one particular psychotherapy hour when maggie was describing yet another frustrating battle with her mother on some question of amy's care, I decided to interrupt her:
'You know I'm struck by your protectiveness of your mother,' I remarked.
'Protectiveness?' exclaimed maggie, looking at me as if I had surely gone mad. 'She's driving me crazy.' I'm not protecting her! I'm fighting with her constantly.'
'And what's the outcome of these fights?' It was a rhetorical question.
'Nothing! Nothing ever changes!' maggie declared.
'Exactly,' I said. 'And that is how you protect her. By participating in fights that lead to nowhere and never speaking directly to the real issues. You fight with your mother rather than let he know where you stand.
'Where I stand on what?' asked maggie.
'Where you stand on the question of who is in charge of your baby and who has the authority to make decisions about her care.'
Maggie was silent for a long moment. The anger on her face changed slowly to a look of mild depression and concern. 'Maybe I'm not sure where I stand."
'Perhaps then,' I responded, 'we had better take a look at the issue first.'
After this exchange, maggie began to move in a new direction. She began to think carefully about her situation as opposed to expressing feelings about it, and to clarify where she stood, rather than continuing to criticise her mother. In this process, maggie gained a new perspective on her pattern of relating to her mother. To her surprise she discovered that she felt guilty about excluding her mother from her new family; part of her wanted to 'share' her children so that her mother would not feel left out or depressed. Maggie thought about her parents divorce, which followed on the heels of her own marriage to bob, and she wondered out loud whether her leaving home and getting married were somehow linked to the ending of her parents marriage. She then revealed a critical piece of information that she had failed to mention in all of our time working together: her mother had received electroshock therapy for a post partum depression following maggies birth. although maggies was not at first aware of it, she was worried that following the event of amy's birth, her mother would again become depressed.
In the months that followed, maggie explored many facets of the deep bond between herself and her mother. She began to feel less angry and more empathic towards her mother as she understoood better how every member of the family, including herself, had unconsciously tried to protect her mother from loneliness and depression whether, in reality she wanted this protection or not. More important, maggies was able to recognise her own wish to maintain the status quo - to hold on to her mother and be close in the old ways. And as long as maggie chose not to fight or to remain silent on issues that mattered to her, she would never really leave home. Even if she moved to the moon, she would still be her mother's little girl.
As maggie became less scared and guilty about showing her mother her own strong and seperate self, she became more ready to make a change in this relationship. She was no longer going to participate in the same old fights. Nor would she sit silently seething when she felt that her authority as both a mother and an adult woman was being questioned. Maggies was going to demonstrate her independence.

The dance of anger - harriet lerner (harper collins)

[Nafferton]

found this post interesting - recognize much truth in discussion of differing responses to woman's anger and man's anger