loving, or whatever), then I wouldn’t feel so bad.” The attacker sees the other as the problem and openly tries to change the other by using whatever means possible.
A relationship in which both partners are attackers resounds to the sound of battle. The attacks and counterattacks are almost continuous as each partner attempts to demonstrate superiority or, at a minimum, equality with the other in all things. It doesn’t matter what the topic of argument is; it could be as simple as what movie to see. Unless one does it or sees it or understands it in the same way, the other feels put down. A huge expenditure of energy goes into getting the other to cry uncle.
Example
Donna and Geoff were in almost constant conflict over their differences in matters of taste. For example, Donna liked classical music and intellectual books. Geoff liked rock music and mysteries. They never lost an opportunity to take a jab at each other. Geoff accused Donna of snobbishness and elitism. Donna accused Geoff of being stupid and plastic. They were both, of course, anxious about their differences because they feared the disapproval of the other, so they worked hard at trying to convince the other of the “rightness” of their likes and dislikes.
During therapy, as they each began to feel more comfortable with their own values, they felt less of a need to insist that the other share those values. They were eventually able to acknowledge that they were just different, and there was no right or wrong. Once they accepted the differences, they were better able to negotiate. For example, they took turns deciding which radio station to have on in the car without criticizing the choice of the other. Without the personal attacks, they came to resolutions much more quickly and without either of them feeling attacked.
People engaged in such a power struggle often think the other has to change before they can change. They get caught up in a circle of hostility, where each one’s “bad” behavior justifies the other’s “bad” behavior. He says to her, “I wouldn’t drink so much if you didn’t nag so much.” She says, “I wouldn’t nag so much if you didn’t drink so much.” Somebody has got to stop first to end this impossible situation.
Part of the underlying problem with the attackers is their low self-esteem. Consciously or unconsciously, neither partner feels very good about himself or herself; each wants the other one to make him or her feel better. Of course, a person under attack isn’t able to be very giving, so the strategy is self-defeating.
Example
Bette and Azeem blamed each other for the problems in their marriage. Each thought he or she was doing it “right” and the other was doing it “wrong.” It didn’t matter what the issue was, large or small: which way to drive to grandma’s, where to go on vacation, who spent the most money. Each could give an elaborate diagnosis of where the other was at fault.
They decided to try marriage counseling, but each went to get the other one fixed up.
The therapist’s questions about family background and past experiences were initially treated as irrelevant and unnecessary since neither Bette nor Azeem thought their own family background was a problem. However, both could see clearly how the other’s family background was a problem and became enthusiastic about analyzing the other family and its strangeness. When Bette and Azeem finally explored their own experiences and feelings in their family of origin, they saw how their patterns in their marriage had developed in their families. They realized they each had a fragile self-esteem and were super-sensitive to any criticism from significant others. As they began to take more responsibility for their own feelings and expected less from the other, their power struggles decreased, although they sometimes fought over who was doing the best job of changing!
QUESTIONS
1. Who was involved in overt power struggles in your family? How did the power struggles get started? How did they end?
2. Are you involved in any power struggles today? What else could you do rather than attack and counterattack? What is it that hooks you into the fight?
2.4 “Bye-bye” — The cutoff
For some people, the only way to deal with demands of any kind is to leave or cut off. They withdraw, either physically or emotionally, when things get too tense for them. They can be as subtle as tuning out of a conversation and turning on the TV or as dramatic as leaving the house, the city, or the country. Many people can live in the same house and still be thousands of miles away emotionally.
One version of the cutoff is the man who continues to live with his wife and appears to be in a compliant position, but in fact is emotionally not there. Another version is the young adult who moves away from home and makes duty visits only when it is absolutely essential or unavoidable. That’s what Sue, whose story we started with, did in order to avoid her contentious father, even though she was a capable adult during most of the time of her cutoff.
Those who cut off usually do so because they feel powerless. They think the other person has all the power, and they don’t see any way to be themselves in a close relationship with that powerful person. They are so unsure of themselves that they deny their need of the other by isolating themselves. These people often appear to be very independent, but like the rebels, it is only a facade. Their independence depends on maintaining emotional distance. They cannot be close without experiencing a great deal of anxiety. They normally function quite well socially and occupationally, perhaps even brilliantly, as long as they do not get emotionally involved. The greater the degree of unresolved emotional attachment in the family of origin, the greater the emotional cutoff can be. Those being cut off also feel powerless and think the person withdrawing has all the power. They don’t see any way to be themselves in a close relationship with that person.
Example
After 20 years of marriage Evita and Hernando began to have increasing conflict, mostly because of changes in Evita. For 17 years of their marriage, Hernando had been the master. He used his authoritarian style as a way to cut off from emotional involvement with Evita, the way he had cut off from his family of origin to protect himself from their criticism. Even though he looked superindependent and autonomous, especially in comparison to Evita, he was very dependent underneath. As long as he was distant and in control of his partner he was able to avoid feeling anxious. As long as Evita complied submissively, the relationship worked for him. But Evita stopped being so compliant and finally told him that she was going to leave him. When he found he could not intimidate her into staying, he fell apart. He pleaded with her and told her he couldn’t live without her, that she was the most important thing in his life.
The dependency Hernando had never really learned to deal with in his family of origin continued to be an issue for him in his marriage.
Emotional cutoff from the family of origin is a common pattern. We think that by cutting off from the family, we will be free of their power and influence over us and our problems will be over. Of course, what happens is that all those unresolved issues follow us into our new relationships. The clearest example of this is in today’s serial marriages and relationships where people keep trying with new partners, but are unsuccessful at developing a satisfying relationship. And it’s always the new partner’s “fault.”
QUESTIONS
1. Who cut off in your family of origin? Was either parent cut off from part or all of their family? What happened to cause the cutoff? How do others in the family react to the cutoff? In what way might the cutoff
