Read Dance of Anger: A Woman's Guide to Changing the Patterns of Intimate Relationships Online
Authors: Harriet Lerner
Tags: #Anger Management, #Personal Growth, #Happiness, #Self-Help
Dance of Anger: A Woman's Guide to Changing the Patterns of Intimate Relationships (16 page)
In this chapter we will see how confusion about “Who is responsible for what?” is one source of nonproductive self-blaming and other-blaming, as well as a roadblock to changing our situation. How can we learn to take
more
responsibility for the self and less for the thoughts, feelings, and behavior of others? At this point, you should be clearer on the subject than when you started out, but let’s continue to try our hand at sorting out the elements of this perplexing question. Remember—assuming responsibility for the self means not only clarifying the “I” but also observing and changing our part in the patterns that keep us stuck. In this chapter we will be looking carefully at the
overfunctioning-underfunctioning
patterns in which we all participate.
Jane and Stephanie have lived together for eight years and have raised a German shepherd who is a much-loved member of their household. One evening the dog woke them in the middle of the night and was obviously quite ill. Stephanie thought that the situation was serious enough to warrant an immediate call to the vet. Jane insisted that it could wait till morning. She accused Stephanie of being excessively worried and overreactive.
When they awoke the next morning, their dog’s condition had worsened. When the veterinarian examined him, she said, “You should have called me immediately. Your dog could have died.” Stephanie was furious at Jane. “If anything had happened,” she said, “
you
would have been to blame!”
What is your perspective on this situation?
How would you react if you were in Stephanie’s shoes at this point?
How do you view the responsibility of each party in contributing to Stephanie’s anger?
We may empathize with Stephanie’s anger, but she is nonetheless confused about who is responsible for what. Let’s analyze the situation in more detail.
It is Jane’s responsibility to clarify her beliefs and take action in accord with them. She did this. It was her opinion that the dog did not need immediate medical attention and so she did not call the doctor. Stephanie, too, is responsible for clarifying
her
beliefs and acting upon them. She did
not
do this. She was worried that the dog might need immediate attention and still she did not call the vet.
I am not suggesting that Stephanie should not feel angry with Jane. If she is angry, she is angry. She may be angry that Jane put down her fears, minimized her concerns, disqualified her perception of reality, or acted like a know-it-all. Nonetheless, it is Stephanie, not Jane, who has the ultimate responsibility for what Stephanie decides to do or not to do.
“The reason I didn’t call,” Stephanie explained later, “is that Jane would never have let me hear the end of it if I was wrong. If I had woken the vet up in the middle of the night for nothing, Jane would have been on my case for weeks and she’d have one more reason to label me a neurotic worrier. I love Jane, but you don’t know how difficult she can be! She is so sure of herself that it makes me question my own opinions.” In this formulation, Stephanie continues to blame Jane for her (Stephanie’s) behavior.
Of course, if Stephanie does begin to assert her own self, Jane may have an intense reaction—especially if Jane has operated as the dominant partner whenever decisions had to be made. But if Stephanie can stick to her position without emotionally distancing or escalating tensions further, chances are that over time Jane will manage her own feelings and reactions just fine.
What are the steps we can take to translate our anger into a clear sense of personal responsibility that will result in more functional relationships with others? Some steps for Stephanie are: observation, clarifying the pattern, and gathering data.
Imagine that you are in Stephanie’s shoes and feeling angry—not just about the dog incident but also about the relationship pattern that this incident brought to light. What might be your next step?
The first step in the direction of gaining greater clarity about who is responsible for what is to begin to
carefully observe
the sequences of interaction that lead up to our feeling angry or emotionally intense. For example, Stephanie might observe that the pattern around decision-making often goes like this:
A situation occurs (in this case, a sick dog) that requires a decision. Stephanie tends to respond first by voicing a rather tentative opinion. Jane then states her own opinion, which may be different, in a supremely confident manner. Stephanie then begins to doubt her initial opinion, or simply concludes that “it’s not worth the fight.” In either case, she defers to Jane. Often this pattern works fine for both of them and things remain calm. But when anxiety and stress are high (as in the present example), Stephanie becomes angry with Jane if the outcome of Jane’s decision-making is not to her liking. Stephanie then either withdraws from Jane or criticizes her decision. If she does the latter, a fight ensues, and by the next day things are usually calm again.
Although she might define it differently, Stephanie is beginning to identify an overfunctioning-underfunctioning pattern around decision-making. The more Jane
overfunctions
(jumps in to make decisions for the two of them; fails to express any doubt or insecurity about her own judgment; behaves as if she does not benefit from Stephanie’s help and advice), the more Stephanie
underfunctions
(spaces out or does nothing when a decision is to be made; relies on Jane to take over; feels lazy or less competent to make important decisions). And the more Stephanie
underfunctions
, the more Jane will
overfunction
. Overfunctioners and underfunctioners reinforce each other’s behavior in a circular fashion.
Approaching a relationship pattern in this way—gathering the objective data about who does what, when, and in what order—is difficult enough when things are calm. It is next to impossible if we are locked into emotionally intense and blaming behavior. We have seen how women learn to be the emotional reactors in our relationships, especially when stress hits, so we may need to make a conscious effort to become less reactive in order to focus our attention on the task of getting the facts.
Stephanie will also benefit from gathering some data about how this pattern of relating to Jane fits with her own family tradition over the generations. For example, how did Stephanie’s parents, and their parents before them, negotiate issues of decision-making? In Stephanie’s extended family, which relationships were characterized by a balance of power and which marriages had one dominant (overfunctioning) partner who was viewed as having the corner on competence? How is Stephanie’s relationship with Jane similar to and different from her parents’ relationship with regard to the sharing of decision-making power? What other women in Stephanie’s family have struggled to shift away from the underfunctioning position and how successful were they? As we saw with Katy, our current relationship struggles are part of a legacy that began long before our birth. A familiarity with this legacy helps us gain objectivity when evaluating our behavior in relationships.
Birth order is another factor that strongly influences our way of negotiating relationships. In Stephanie and Jane’s case, for example, their pattern around decision-making fits their sibling positions. Jane is the older of two sisters. It is characteristic of one in this sibling position to be a natural leader and to believe, in one’s heart of hearts, that one truly knows best, not only for oneself, but for the other person as well. Stephanie is the younger of the two sisters in her family, and, in the manner of one in that position, is often comfortable letting other people do things for her. Although she may compete fiercely with the “leader,” she may also shun leadership should it be offered her. Simply being aware that one’s sibling position within the family affects one’s approach to life can be extremely helpful. If Stephanie finds herself having a hard time taking charge of things, and Jane an equally hard time
not
taking charge, they will both be able to deal with their situation with more humor and less self-criticism if they can appreciate the fact that they are behaving much the way people in their sibling positions behave under stress.
Let us suppose that Stephanie has taken the following steps since the dog incident: First, she has let go of her blaming position (“If anything had happened,
you
would have been to blame!”) and has begun to
think
about, rather than simply react to, the problem. Second, she has pretty clearly figured out who does what, when, and in what order; when stress hits, Stephanie underfunctions and Jane overfunctions. Third, Stephanie has thought about how this pattern fits with the traditions in her own family. Finally, she has concluded that she is in a de-selfed position and that her anger is a signal that she would like to achieve more balance in her relationship with Jane when it comes to decision-making.
The following dialogues reflect two modes of using our anger: The first assumes that Jane has the problem and it is her responsibility to take care of it. The second assumes that Stephanie has the problem and it is her responsibility to take care of it.
1
“Jane, you are so damned sure of yourself. You’re impossible to argue with because you’re always right and you don’t really listen to my opinions in any open way. You come on so strong that no one can argue with you. I’m really fed up with your know-it-all attitude. When I give my opinion, you pronounce it true or not true, like you’re God or something. You make me feel totally insecure about my own thinking. And you always take over and manipulate things to get your way.”
2
“You know, Jane, I’ve been thinking about the problem that I have in our relationship. I think it has to do with how difficult it is for me to make decisions and take charge of things. I didn’t call the vet the other night because when you expressed such confidence in your opinion, I began to doubt my own. And when you were critical of my opinion and put me down for being so worried—which I don’t like—I reacted by being even more ready to back down. I’m aware that I do this a lot. And I’m planning to work harder to make my own decisions and stand behind them. I’m sure I’ll make mistakes and our relationship might be more tense for a while—but I’m just not satisfied with things as they are. However, I’m also aware that the women in my family haven’t done too well making their own decisions—so it may not be easy for me to be a pioneer in this way.”
What about dialogue 1? Some relationships thrive on tough confrontation, and feedback of this sort and fighting it out may be viewed by both partners as a valuable and spicy aspect of the relationship. For all we know, Jane might respond to dialogue 1 by becoming thoughtful and saying, “You know, I’ve been told that before by other people in my life. I think you have something there. I’m sorry for coming on so strong and I’ll try to watch it.”
This dialogue does, however, reflect Stephanie’s confusion about the matter of individual responsibility. Can you spot the problem? She holds Jane responsible for Jane’s behavior (putting Stephanie down), which is fair enough; but she also holds Jane responsible for Stephanie’s behavior (feeling insecure and manipulated and failing to stand firmly behind her own opinion), which is not fair at all. Blaming of this sort blurs the boundaries between self and other in a close relationship.
What about dialogue 2? Here, Stephanie shares something about herself and does not assume to be an expert on Jane. She talks about her own dilemma in the relationship and takes responsibility for her own participation in the pattern. While dialogue 1 might lead to a further escalation of an already stressful situation, dialogue 2 would probably calm things down a bit and foster greater objectivity on both women’s parts.
Which dialogue better suits your personal style? For me, it depends on the relationship. With my husband, Steve, I sometimes dissipate tension by fighting dialogue-1 style, although with less frequency and intensity as I get older. At work, however, and during visits from long-distance friends and family, I end up feeling much better if I communicate in dialogue-2 style, and I find that these relationships do better, too. It all depends on what the circumstances are, what your goals are, and what in the past has left you feeling better or worse in the long run.
Of course, what is most important is not what Stephanie says to Jane but what she does. Next time around, perhaps Stephanie will listen to Jane and consider her perspective but then take responsibility to make her own reasoned decision about what she will and won’t do. Stephanie’s communication style will make little difference if she does not modify her own underfunctioning position.
As we learn to identify relationship patterns, we are faced with a peculiar paradox: On the one hand, our job is to learn to take responsibility for our thoughts, feelings, and behavior and to recognize that other people are responsible for their own. Yet, at the same time, how we react with others has a great deal to do with how they react with us. We cannot
not
influence a relationship pattern. Once a relationship is locked into a circular pattern, the whole cycle will change when one person takes the responsibility for changing her or his own part in the sequence.
