The Level of Our Dysfunction

There are many books and articles that deal with couple relationships.  Oodles of them!  I certainly haven't read them all, but of the many that I've read, I have not found as of yet a sentiment or phrase that mirrors what I came up with long ago as a new intern.  I find it surprising to not have read it.  It seems to be so self-evident.  I would think that anyone who deals with dyadic, partner relationships on a regular basis would have come to the following conclusion, and written:

Couples find a partner to the level of their dysfunction (or function)

What does that mean?  It means that in nearly all cases, whatever unresolved dysfunction we bring to a relationship as a result of our upbringing or early experiences will cause us to couple up with someone who is as dysfunctional as we are.  Another way of stating it would be:  if I bring negative stuff, issues, @#$%!, to a romantic relationship, my partner will have likely have as much stuff, issues, and @#$%! as I do.  The dysfunctions may not be identical, although in many cases they are (at their core), but we can only attract to us what we are.

Looking at it yet another way, if I am having issues with my partner--the negative baggage they have brought and it is negatively affecting the relationship, chances are that you have either the same issues (at their core) or similar issues as they have.

This concept I consistently find in my work with couples may be difficult to swallow, but if you think about it logically, it can begin to make a lot of sense. 

Let's assume for a moment that our dysfunction/function could be put on a scale of 0 to 5, and 0 is emotionally REALLY messed up, and 5 is emotional REALLY functional and healthy.  If I enter into a relationship at a 2.5, for instance, will someone who is a 4 or more really want to be with me for any period of time?  When the honeymoon phase is past and we begin to see each others' dysfunctional "issues," the "4" will not be tolerant of the "2.5," and the "2.5" will accuse the "4" of thinking that they're perfect.  The relationship will not last long.  

Instead, we unconsciously find comfort connecting with someone who is "like me," who "gets me" or who "connects with me."  Someone who is like you, gets you, and connects with you, will have similar issues and/or as many issues as you do.  It can only be that way!

This premise is also true with our level of function.  If we had the great blessing (luck) of being raised in a somewhat positive, affirming, healthy family, we will likely attract a similarly functioning person. Or to use our scale above, the "4" will likely attract a "3.5" (maybe) or a "4" (probably) or a "4.5." (probably not)

The couples that sit in front of me in therapy are not usually a pair of 4s.  Such a pair would likely not have issues that require psychotherapy.  Instead, I see anywhere from 1 to 3s, in my opinion.  I am happy that they are sitting in front of me because they see themselves as less than what they want to be and are seeking help.

But what I usually see is one partner pointing the finger at the other and expecting them to do the changing; as if their partner is really the dysfunctional one.  And while the accusing partner may want to project a facade of owning part of the problem by admitting that "I'm not perfect," they really do believe that the accused partner IS the problem.  Using my 0-5 scale, the accusing partner really sees him or herself as a "4" and their partner  as a "1" or a "2," if not a "0."  

If my hypothesis is correct, however, then the accusing partner IS part of the problem, likely a significant part, and needs to look at him or herself.  It requires looking at the underlying, core reasons for the problem that exists between partners, and coming to understand and accept one's own dysfunctions.  It often requires looking at one's family of origin and what dynamics were in play during formative years, and how stressful situations were dealt with (or not.)

The good news is that if one partner accepts personal responsibility and works on him or herself, and begins to take steps toward recovery or being in a better psychological place, the other partner will likely feel the need to take their own steps toward recovery or being in a better place.  Or they will run away screaming.  And they will run away screaming because the improving partner is evolving from a "3" to a "3.5" and that will make the "3" uncomfortable.

Taking personal responsibility in a relationship is challenging.  It is much easier to point a finger.  It is much easier to stay stuck (it's the devil you know!)  Working on yourself takes time.  It is a process, but a process that ultimately is worth the trouble.  

There are no guarantees that partnerships will last.  Sometimes the dysfunctions are too great.  Sometimes couples ultimately find out consciously or subconsciously that they are out of sync, as I have discussed above.  But if the partnership does not last, each will take their dysfunctions to the next relationship and will again find someone who is a dysfunctional as they are.  Why not work on one's self, so that if the partnership does not work, the person will be emotionally healthier for the next relationship, and will likely attract someone equally healthy?

I observe some great partnerships.  While they likely have very different personalities, both persons are emotionally healthy, are mindful of the other, are unselfish, and are working on making their partnership work.  It is as if there are three entities in the process: the two partners AND the partnership.  Emotionally healthy couples work on the partnership as they work on themselves because of their deep emotional connection.  They respect one another.  They talk things out.  They are not easily offended. They would never do anything to deliberately hurt the other.  They are of one mind and one heart.

They are undoubtedly similar in their function; it couldn't be otherwise.

  

Boundaries -- Part 1

In geography, boundaries are the borders marking a state, a country, or a person's land.  Unlike states on maps, we don't have thick black lines delineating OUR boundaries.  Yet each of us has our own territory.  Our boundaries define and contain that territory, which includes our bodies, minds, emotions, spirit, possessions, and rights. Boundaries define and surround all our energy, the individual self that we each call "me."  Our borders are invisible, but real.  There is a place where I end and you begin.  The purpose of this blog post is to help you learn to identify and have respect for that line.

I use the term boundary frequently in the recovery work that I do with those with addictive behaviors (most people) and their loved ones whose lives have been affected by those behaviors.  It is used to describe an action--setting a boundary--meaning an attempt to set a limit on someone.  Often, when this term is used and attempted, the person is saying to someone that he or she can't use us, hurt us, or take what we have, whether those possessions are concrete or abstract.  The person has decided to tell someone that they can't abuse them, or otherwise invade or infringe on them in a particular way.  The person has decided to no longer allow someone to trample on them.

But boundaries are supposed to be taught by parents, and often parents did not have a sense of boundaries, or built emotional walls instead of boundaries, or had boundaries with holes in them, or did not have consequences that put "teeth" in the boundaries.  Likely, their parents may not have had boundaries on their own actions or the actions of those around them.  Thus the dysfunction can be multi-generational, and the dysfunction can powerfully distill to the present. Inappropriate generational roles among family members, and inappropriate roles between one's family and other families, can also hurt boundary formation.

Although some people are fortunate enough to emerge into adulthood knowing who they are, and what their rights are and aren't, many emerge into adulthood with damaged, scarred, or non-existent boundaries.  Those who saw them modeled learned not to trespass on other people's territories do not now allow others to invade theirs.  They have healthy boundaries and a solid sense of self.  But for others, boundaries are inconsistent, rarely or never attached to consequences, and are completely off their radar.

Sometimes, people are so overwhelmed in their own territories that they construct thick and high emotional walls to protect themselves from being hurt anymore. The walls usually start to be built in childhood when a child's boundaries and rights are invaded or violated, or they are forced into inappropriate roles with those around them. Children may have weak or non-existent boundaries if they were emotionally or physically neglected or abandoned, or if they weren't nurtured or weren't raised with appropriate discipline and limits.  They may not have developed a "self," an identity, or a healthy sense of self-esteem, because it's challenging for a "self" to form in a void.  Regardless, these walls serve as a learned coping strategy for adults that represent a sort of castle, not letting anybody get in, but also a prison, not allowing the person to get out.

Abuse, humiliation, or shame by one's caregivers damages boundaries, and the abuse, humiliation, or shame do not necessarily have had to have been in significant or memorable ways.  These behaviors can result in significant holes in one's boundaries.  As an adult, they are vulnerable to invasion in those areas until they repair and strengthen that part of their border.

If one had to take care of someone who was supposed to be their caregiver, they may believe other people's thoughts, feelings, and problems are their responsibility.  If they lived with someone who encouraged them to be overly dependent on him or her, they may not have learned they had a complete sense of their "own-ness."  They may have entered into adulthood feeling like they were half of something, and needed another person to be complete.

Controlling people invade territory.  They trespass, and think that it's their right to do so.  If one lived with someone who tried to control their thoughts, bodies, or feelings, their boundaries may have been damaged.  If their rights to their emotions, thoughts, bodies, privacy, and possessions weren't respected, they may not know as adults that they have rights.  They may not know others' rights either.

How we connected with our primary caregiver determines how we connect with others as adults.  One's boundaries determine how one fits or bonds with those around them.  If a person has weak boundaries, they may get lost in another's territory.  Relationships can cause fear because a person might feel too vulnerable and fear losing all that they have, including themselves.

People feel most comfortable around people who have healthy boundaries.  The saying goes "fences make good neighbors," and such a border engenders comfort. The challenge is to develop healthy boundaries, not too pliable or too rigid.  It is important to look at one's "fences" to determine if any pieces or sections of it need repair or replacement, or if an entire part needs to be constructed.  It is in one's own best interest to do so, thus the reason for this blog posting.

As healthy boundaries are developed, there evolves an appropriate sense of roles among family members, others, and one's self.  Respect for one's self and others is learned, not allowing one's self to be abused or to abuse.  With healthy boundaries, one cannot be controlled and will not want to control others.  There is a realization that one does not have to take responsibility for others, and a desire to not let others take responsibility for them.  Everyone takes responsibility for themselves! If one is rigid, they loosen up a bit.  A clear sense of complete self and one's rights is developed.  Respect for another's territory as well as one's own is learned through developing the skill to listen to and trust one's self.


Part Two of Boundaries will be published soon in the next blog posting.  Some of the ideas presented are original to me, but many are taken from a book written by Melody Beattie, published by Hazelden, called "Beyond Codependency-- And Getting Better All the Time."    





  

STAYING WITHIN EMOTIONAL REACH

I'm the apple of her eye!

On Sunday, my wife Ann and I will celebrate 34 years of marriage.  In this day and age, that is an accomplishment I suppose.  But honestly, divorce while always an option never has seemed to be the way to ultimately deal with problems between us.

I can say that through the years, I have assimilated some of Ann’s personal and gender characteristics and she likewise has assimilated some of mine.  Perhaps more importantly from the standpoint of the couple’s therapy that I do routinely these days, she has been working on her own personal issues while at the same time I have been working on my own.  What that has served to accomplish is to keep us within emotional reach of one another.  What I mean by that is she has grown more secure in herself through the years while I have grown more secure in myself in those years, and that growth has been fairly equivalent.

Based upon my research and my clinical experience, when one partner in a relationship goes forward or backward in a significant way in their emotional life and their partner does not simultaneously respond in like manner, there are problems.  For example, if a partner gets caught up in an addiction, there is a regression in his or her emotional life, while at the same time, their partner usually has maintained and not regressed.  That’s a problem.  That presents a widening gap in their emotional reach of one another.  Another example might be a partner who has an exciting, fulfilling job while the other has a repetitive, non-stimulating life at home.  (Read my daughter’s example of my hypothesis in my recent blog entry of her blog post.)  That’s a problem.  That also likely causes a widening gap in their emotional reach.

As I state often in my clinical experience, when we go into a partner relationship, we enter at the level of our dysfunction.  In other words, we find and connect with someone who is as similarly “messed up” as we are (or aren’t).  We fall in love with someone who is within emotional reach of us.  Harville Hendrix, who has written extensively about finding our “Imago,” (Greek for our “image”— our likeness) is stating what I just wrote but in a different way.  We enter into relationships with similar “baggage” from our families of origin and our life experiences (nurture), and who we are (nature.)  If partners aren’t similarly “messed up,” the relationship will likely not last.

Icy surroundings, warm hearts

But then, unless a couple’s emotional lives remain somewhat close as the years pass, their relationship will likely be in peril and likely will not last.  Having read this hypothesis, I imagine my daughter might think that her relationship with my son-in-law might be doomed.  That is not necessarily so.  If both are really concerned about the other and each is willing to be humble and open to making changes in themselves, not expecting the other to change before they do, then they likely will stay within emotional reach of one another.  I pretty sure that will be the case with my daughter and her good husband who is a wonderful, humble man, and whom I am proud to have as a son-in-law. 

I know that Ann really cares for me on a deep level as I care deeply for her, but we both humbly realize that we each have issues and we try to work on them constantly.  In order for our marriage to flourish—that third entity in our partnership beyond her and me—, each entity has to “take care of their own side of the street.”  As we do so, the emotional distance between us is relatively small and we can deal with the resulting bumps in the road as they occur.

To be fully transparent, we have not always cleaned our own sides of the street.  In the past we looked outwardly to the other, to some degree, to meet our emotional needs.  And that occasionally surfaces even now, but when our partnership was wobbly in the past during challenges in child rearing, we got into therapy and we BOTH started working on our own “stuff,” and we continue to do so.  As a consequence, we have grown, and we have grown more or less at the same rate.  That small emotional distance between us has allowed us to grow together as a couple!

We sometimes "put on the dog"

Longevity in marriages does not necessarily mean that all is well and blissful.  For every one that is, there are as many or more that are not.  Couples can often merely tolerate one another because there is little emotional connection; they are not within emotional reach of one each other.  Those partners will often look to fulfill emotional needs outside of their relationship because there is so precious little within it.

So as I approach April 22, I have a huge smile on my face!  I have never been happier and more in love than I am right now at this time of my life.  My marriage just keeps getting better because there is emotional connection and passion.  My wife is my best friend, my confidant, my lover.  I cannot wait to be around her and love living life with her.  And what is most wondrous about this relationship is that the doctrine of my Church dictates it can last beyond death.  It can last forever; there is no “‘til death do you part.”  Why wouldn’t I want this blissful experience to go on indefinitely?

I am working hard on what I can control—myself, and on our marriage so that the transition from mortality to eternity will be natural.   HAPPY ANNIVERSARY TO ME!

"You are my lover, you're my best friend, you're in my soul"