A few years ago now we were having dinner. The children were with us. The conversation moved over varying topics as it is inclined to do. At the time we had a female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. She was the sort of leader that prompted a strong reaction. Either you loved her or you hated her. But, what struck both my eldest son and myself as significant about this particular day in Parliament was that various men in the Parliament had been very rude to her. No matter what your politics, we both agreed, you should never speak to someone who is a leader of the country in that rude way.
If you asked my husband today if he agreed with that statement he'd almost certainly say he does. Yet, his disdain for her and her politics influenced his thinking during that conversation and he was adamant that we had muddled thinking about this. More to the point, he felt that it was somehow my responsibility and duty to agree with him. It became so heated that my son and I moved to the kitchen and began washing the dishes, giving up the argument altogether, but my husband wanted to keep the thing going. 'Dad you're talking to yourself. The conversation is over,' he said. And in a whisper I said to my son, 'Never, ever are we to talk politics at the table again.' He nodded his agreement.
I suppose all this time I have had that silly situation tucked behind my ear, because another situation like that came up recently and I felt a sense of deja vu. Over dinner at a restaurant I acknowledged every thing that my husband was saying about a health issue, with one proviso. For me there is always one proviso when talking about health because I believe the state of the mind can never be discounted from any conversation about health.
In these situations I aim for complete calm over my responses but in the end I said, 'No matter how long I am married to you I will always be me, an individual with my own thoughts. You're not entitled to insist that I agree with you', or words to that effect.
It prompted memories; memories decades old when I would say 'I'm Vesta (my real full maiden name is what I said) and I'll always be Vesta and there is nothing you can do about it. I am an individual.'
I have explored this line of thought, naturally, and there is a word for it, enmeshment. Some people can feel that it is critical for their well being that their life partner more or less becomes them. What is dangerous about this is that, bit by bit, the spouse begins to let go of, and even forget, his or her own needs, wants, thoughts, hopes and dreams. The spouse have become enmeshed with the other person in totality. Disagreement can be seen as proof that the two people are not feeling and thinking as one which can mean that disagreement equates to not being loved; very flawed thinking.
The answer lies in setting boundaries; something I'm learning about and reading about right now, so I don't have all the answers as yet. What I can say is that it feels good to realize this interpersonal transaction for what it is. There is a personal power in understanding why things happen as they do. We haven't had one of those challenging sorts of conversations since the restaurant dilemma. That night I asked him to stop badgering me and if he didn't I would leave. He continued to badger and I left and walked home. I think he got the point.
It is almost inconceivable that it won't happen again, but at the same time recognizing that it causes him great emotional pain for me not to agree with him on a topic that is important to him, I'll probably be inclined to keep my full opinion to myself. This is a shame, since we've been conversing non stop for over 40 years.
My goal would be to, on occasion, respectfully agree to disagree and make clear that this is not an interruption or annihilation of the love between us. I'm not at all sure, from the reading I have done, that strong feelings of spousal responsibility to agree with the other, can be easily turned around if one person feels strongly that their point of view is the truth. It's one element of interpersonal relations that came up repeatedly in the MA; that great discord in history has occurred with a rigid ownership of truth. Acknowledging that the world is more grey and less black and white is a good thing if we want to move closer to a more harmonious world where opinions can be shared and evaluated openly.
If you asked my husband today if he agreed with that statement he'd almost certainly say he does. Yet, his disdain for her and her politics influenced his thinking during that conversation and he was adamant that we had muddled thinking about this. More to the point, he felt that it was somehow my responsibility and duty to agree with him. It became so heated that my son and I moved to the kitchen and began washing the dishes, giving up the argument altogether, but my husband wanted to keep the thing going. 'Dad you're talking to yourself. The conversation is over,' he said. And in a whisper I said to my son, 'Never, ever are we to talk politics at the table again.' He nodded his agreement.
I suppose all this time I have had that silly situation tucked behind my ear, because another situation like that came up recently and I felt a sense of deja vu. Over dinner at a restaurant I acknowledged every thing that my husband was saying about a health issue, with one proviso. For me there is always one proviso when talking about health because I believe the state of the mind can never be discounted from any conversation about health.
In these situations I aim for complete calm over my responses but in the end I said, 'No matter how long I am married to you I will always be me, an individual with my own thoughts. You're not entitled to insist that I agree with you', or words to that effect.
It prompted memories; memories decades old when I would say 'I'm Vesta (my real full maiden name is what I said) and I'll always be Vesta and there is nothing you can do about it. I am an individual.'
I have explored this line of thought, naturally, and there is a word for it, enmeshment. Some people can feel that it is critical for their well being that their life partner more or less becomes them. What is dangerous about this is that, bit by bit, the spouse begins to let go of, and even forget, his or her own needs, wants, thoughts, hopes and dreams. The spouse have become enmeshed with the other person in totality. Disagreement can be seen as proof that the two people are not feeling and thinking as one which can mean that disagreement equates to not being loved; very flawed thinking.
The answer lies in setting boundaries; something I'm learning about and reading about right now, so I don't have all the answers as yet. What I can say is that it feels good to realize this interpersonal transaction for what it is. There is a personal power in understanding why things happen as they do. We haven't had one of those challenging sorts of conversations since the restaurant dilemma. That night I asked him to stop badgering me and if he didn't I would leave. He continued to badger and I left and walked home. I think he got the point.
It is almost inconceivable that it won't happen again, but at the same time recognizing that it causes him great emotional pain for me not to agree with him on a topic that is important to him, I'll probably be inclined to keep my full opinion to myself. This is a shame, since we've been conversing non stop for over 40 years.
My goal would be to, on occasion, respectfully agree to disagree and make clear that this is not an interruption or annihilation of the love between us. I'm not at all sure, from the reading I have done, that strong feelings of spousal responsibility to agree with the other, can be easily turned around if one person feels strongly that their point of view is the truth. It's one element of interpersonal relations that came up repeatedly in the MA; that great discord in history has occurred with a rigid ownership of truth. Acknowledging that the world is more grey and less black and white is a good thing if we want to move closer to a more harmonious world where opinions can be shared and evaluated openly.
No comments:
Post a Comment